Transport Canada
Border Wait-Time Project
Phase 2
Proof of Concept
Executive Summary
Coordination & Policy Advice
Transport Canada, Ontario
June 15, 2004
Study Context: Post 911 Reality
 Congestion and excessive CV delays at Can/U.S. border crossings in the wake
of 911 were symptomatic of more fundamental problems, and management
system deficiencies, that evoked lingering concerns regarding Canada’s
competitiveness vis-a-vis U.S. markets.
 The extraordinary escalation in CV wait-time, or delays, was only the tip of
the iceberg, more problematic was:
 the unpredictability of crossing times,
 the potential vulnerability to further disruption,
 the lack of consistent & reliable empirical data on Border Wait-Times (BWT),
and/or
 the absence of any systematic capacity to generate & transmit “real-time “ data on
wait times at Canada-U.S. border crossings.
 The latter concerns, #3 in particular, prompted consideration of one particular
aspect of the problem; I.e., whether truck/tractor logs were an untapped &
potentially abundant source of empirical data on wait-times & delays at
Canada/U.S. border crossings.
Phase 1: Initial “Pilot Project” Research
 Initial Research & Facilitation
 secured the endorsement & support of related interests, including Ontario
Trucking Association (OTA),
 detailed discussion/consultations with GPS-based, GPS+Cellular-based
& (CanCom) Satellite service providers,
 worked with Tachograph cards and GPS data supplied by 2 carriers
 Phase 1: Results/Conclusions
 report completed 10/02
 results presented at CTRF, May ‘03 Conference Proceedings
Conclusions
 tractor logs are a rich/abundant source of empirical data on waittime, or delays incurred throughout the entire O/D trip, be it border
crossings, or shippers/receivers yards,
 such wait-time data can be accessed, processed and compiled in
readily useable form.
Phase 2: Formal “Proof of Concept”

The success of the initial Pilot, coupled with further research on the
relative merits of the “alternative” technology options (i.e. Satellite v. GPS
v. GPS/Cellular) prompted us to redefine, or delimit, the project
scope/content prior to moving onto a formal proof of concept:



The Phase 2 Scope/Objectives were restated as follows:
1.
2.

the capability to vary the frequency of the polling interval makes truck-mounted
GPS units, or E-data recorders, the technology option best suited for measuring
narrowly-defined, border crossing intervals,
a singular focus on border wait-times (a.o.t. the entire O/D trip), or that fragment
of the trip/tractor log measuring no more than 30-60 km on either side of each
border crossing, would ensure confidentiality of all proprietary interests
to identify/demonstrate practical ways & means to exploit the inherent, technical
functionality of GPS-based , E-data recorder units, and
to assess the costs, or cost-effectiveness, of advancing the project from concept
through to development and “live-time” implementation, with a broad-based and
expanded sample size.
Final report completed, distributed for consideration & review 06/04
BWT Study (Phase 2): Project Method
 From 08/03-11/03 TC, Ontario Region, worked directly with Turnpike Global Technologies
(TGT) Ltd., a GPS-based Application Service Provider.
 TGT offers (IFTA) Fuel Tax Allocation & Reporting as part of its core service content.
 identifying changes in prov/state jurisdictional boundaries is key to tax allocation/reporting
 TGT maintains an archive of all trip logs in compliance with IFTA reporting standards.
 The end-use “crossing interval” measures were developed by hindcasting over TGT’s data
archives:
 Reference points, corresponding to specific long/lat coordinates, were set to create a simulated (i.e.
Geofenced) Border Crossing Zone . (Chart #1)
 A minimum of 2 GPS location polls are required to process a border crossing, additional points
were added to create a variable transit/approach zone at each crossing.
 TGT developed program algorithms to reprocess and compile the source data archives in relation to
the specified Border Reference Zones.
 Wait-Time defined as the sum of time spent in the queue, plus lag-time in processing (Chart #2)
 The analytical model is based entirely on 2 locational, data-elements (i.e. geo-coordinates
& timestamps) derived from the trip log.
Border Wait-Time Study: Project Method
 Start with TGT’s Data Archive
 @ 22k trip logs from 01/02-09/03
 Designate “Border Zone” reference
points
 ID a border crossing:
 System cycles thru data, looking for change
in province/state, links point to “geocoded
box” at each crossing
 Points matching to recreate route
 Previous/Post 100 points & timestamps
found and stored for each crossing
 Geofence Reference points
 Geocoded box set round each reference
point
 system “algorithm” adjusts timestamps of
points located immediately before/after
reference points
 Processing a Border Crossing
 Data filtered thru each successive stages, to
eliminate invalid crossings, system flukes,.
 Results of Zone Analysis stored in a final
table, then compiled by crossing
 Post-processing, statistical analysis can
begin.
(Chart #1)
Wait Time Schematic for U.S. Bound Traffic
Zone 3 (ON)
Zone 2 (ON)
Zone 1 (ON)
(Chart #2)
Zone 1 (MI)
Bridge Crossing
Transit Zone
Border Crossing Zone
Total Crossing Time (TCT) = Transit Zone Time + Border Crossing Zone Time
Border Crossing Time (BCT) = Border Crossing Zone Time
Border Wait Time Project: Summary Highlights
 The data set netted @15k crossing observations, from 01/02-09/03 (Chart #3):
 not a “representative” sample, but a sound basis for (initial) empirical analysis,
 The data clearly demonstrates the extent & utility of the (wait-time) interval
data that can be derived from the E-tractor log, using nothing more than (2)
routine by-products of the mobile tracking process:




flexibility to manipulate the data by month, day of week, time of day,
mimics familiar operational patterns at various crossings (Chart #4)
sensitive to exogenous shifts (Orange v.Yellow) in operations (Chart #5)
does not compromise proprietary interests in any material way (Chart #6)
 Notwithstanding the weakness/errors in the existing data set, the results of the
analysis - & corresponding lessons learned – support the conclusion that
GPS-based, electronic data recorders have the inherent functionality to
generate increasingly precise wait-time estimates, & also model the network
linkages that exist between crossings in S. Ontario (i.e. QL\Peace; Am\BWB)
bridges)
 initiate hi-resolution polling (i.e.400m.intervals) at crossing locations (Chart #7)
 precise placement of reference points (Chart #8)
 more elaborate Geofencing (Chart #8)
Border Wait Time Project: Summary Highlights (cont’d)
 It is now possible estimate the costs of moving to “live-time” implementation
(Phase 3) using a variable, or scalable, combination of data procurement
contracts with industry service providers, and deployment of customconfigured GPS-probe units (Chart # 9)
 Implementation costs are transparent, largely linear in nature, and
 likely to decline on per/unit basis as sample volume grows & other related “3 rdparty” business applications evolve
 Probe-units offer a great degree of flexibility, selectivity and control in
accumulating data than a revolving service contract,
 Probe units, deployed by carrier, dedicated traffic lane and/or by commodity, will
shape content & structure as you grow the data sample
 It is estimated that a (Phase 3) data procurement program, as described
above, would compile between 160-250K wait-time observations at a Total
Estimated Cost (TEC) of $240-275K, over the proposed 2-year implementation
period.
BWT Project: Distribution of Crossing Data
Crossings Originating in Ontario
Distribution of Crossings (U.S. Bound)
(Chart #3)
Crossings Returning via NY & MI
Distribution of Crossings (Canada Bound)
Ambassador
(1211)
18%
Ambassador
(596)
8%
Bluewater
(1942)
25%
Peace Bridge
(4604)
59%
Q/L (632)
8%
Peace
Q/L
Peace Bridge
(3609)
52%
Bluewater
(1369)
20%
Q/L(654)
10%
Bluewater
Ambassador
Peace Bridge
Q/L
Bluewater
Ambassador
BWT Project: Flexibility of the Data
The TC/Turnpike data set is too small to be
definitive, but this demonstration exercise has
been about something more than definitive, or
necessarily precise, estimates of wait-times at
each crossing.
The strengths of the data set are readily
apparent in the flexibility it offers to manipulate
the data, as well as the manner in which it
replicates familiar patterns at various crossings.
(Chart # 4)
Peace Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Examples:
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Avg. TCT
Avg. BCT
Ambassador Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Avg. TCT
Avg. BCT
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
The TC/Turnpike data closely replicates the peaking
patterns that characterize daily operations at Peace &
Ambassador Bridges.
 at Peace Bridge, U.S.-bound traffic builds thruout
the day, reaching peak levels (circa 5-6PM) that are
typically sustained well into the late evening hours.
 at Ambassador Bridge, peak volumes persist pretty
much ‘round the clock, with any notable decreases
limited to the early AM hours.
 in both cases, the escalation in crossing times, eflects
a corresponding decrease in average speeds thruout
the respective transit zones
8
BWT Project: Sensitivity of the Data
(Chart #5)
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Ambassador Bridge
Bluewater Bridge
Peace Bridge
Q/L Bridge
Orange Alert- Mean
66.49903101
31.4258658
60.65511399
47.43836806
Yellow Alert- Mean
44.80250651
24.5369849
52.36020592
31.28146766
% increase in means
48.42703274
86
28.07549878
15.8420081
51.65007144
308
541
121
512
1634
4063
536
97
366
669
108
-3.967851661
-4.052552091
-4.360306208
-4.008417932
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000139014
6.19031E-05
1.50346E-05
0.000106096
t Critical two-tail
1.984722076
1.966468517
1.963517207
1.979765329
Orange Alert- obs
Yellow Alert- obs
Df
t Stat
The t-test was used to evaluate whether there was an notable variation in average crossing times when
the Threat Advisory level was elevated from “yellow” to “orange “ alert. The Threat Advisory was
elevated to alert-level Orange on four (4) separate occasions from 01/02-09/03, the times series covered
by the TC/Turnpike data set.
Conclusions:
 all four major border crossings in S. Ont. had higher average crossing times under the “orange alert’ scenario
 Ambassador bridge had the highest average crossing time (66min.), with orange alert was in effect, followed by Peace
bridge (61min.), Queenston/Lewiston bridge (47min.) & Bluewater bridge (31min.).
the relative increase in average crossing times from “yellow” to “orange’ alert was highest for the
Queenston/Lewiston & Ambassador bridges (@ 50%) and lowest for Peace bridge (< 16%)
BWT Project: Two (2) Data Elements Only
(Chart #6)
BorderID
Bridge
Orign
Date
Time
Lat’tde
Long’tde
Zone3
Zone2
Zone1
Border
27579
Peace
ON
1/10/2002
17:57:11
42.90415
-78.89967
16:45:35
16:49:53
17:13:58
17:57:11
27580
Peace
ON
1/14/2002
19:37:39
42.89137
-78.89092
18:45:53
18:50:24
19:00:00
19:37:39
27581
Peace
ON
1/30/2002
20:32:21
42.90703
-78.91731
20:13:59
20:18:13
20:21:18
20:32:21
27616
Peace
ON
2/11/2002
23:01:08
42.89952
-78.89584
22:45:01
22:49:22
22:54:16
23:01:08
27555
Peace
ON
2/12/2002
12:54:37
42.90742
-78.91333
12:43:00
12:47:25
12:52:09
12:54:37
27603
Peace
ON
2/12/2002
21:04:27
42.89925
-78.8969
20:40:14
20:44:37
20:48:17
21:04:27
27589
Peace
ON
2/13/2002
15:55:35
42.90705
-78.9069
15:41:06
15:45:28
15:49:35
15:55:35
27617
Peace
ON
2/13/2002
23:36:40
42.90791
-78.91231
23:19:27
23:23:50
23:28:18
23:36:40
The Concept/Method as developed to this point draws on only two (2) data elements; i.e. geocoordinates & timestamps; from the trip log. The data stream is completely agnostic and is not linked
in any way to the carrier, the commodity on-board, or any other identifier.
Were the number of control data elements to include carrier type, commodity class, for example, it
would be possible to differentiate crossing-time variability by carrier type or commodity class.
This would dramatically enhance the empirical value and overall utility of the interval estimates that
can be derived from the trip log. Ideally, and such mechanism would link the basic location data with
added sampling requirements, while preserving the anonymity of the source data
Standard v. Hi-Resolution Polling
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
20
22
22
18
16
20
Avg. TCT
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Avg. BCT
All Bridges (ON)
Average Border Crossing Times by Hour
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Q/L
Peace
Bluew ater
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
0
2
In a “live-time”scenario, units can be
programmed to accelerate into High-Resolution
mode on entering the pre-defined Border
Reference Zone. This will increase the frequency
of the polling interval, with polls recorded every
400 meters, & enhance the accuracy of the
estimates that can be derived over the shortest
BCT intervals.
40
0
 points denoting the 2 sides of the BWB bridge span are only
0.5kms apart, and
 at 4 & 2 minutes respectively, the Avg. BCT for north & southbound traffic.are unusually short, moreover,.
 in contrast to the other crossings, there is little or no, day-day
or periodic, fluctuation in the BCT interval thruout the entire
sample period.
Bluewater Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Hour
0
The Turnpike data archives were recorded by
units operating in Standard-Resolution mode.
Polls are only recorded at 1-2 mile intervals
depending on speed, hence, the source data
lacks the resolution to accurately estimate
elapsed (BCT) time over the shortest intervals;
i.e.:
(Chart #7)
Ambassador
Geofencing the Border Reference Zones
Geofencing the Border Reference Zone is
relatively problem free, when access to a
crossing is via a single linear corridor.
However, errant data readings will occur
when reference point are insufficient, or zone
coverage is incomplete.
In retrospect, it was short-sighted to
arbitrarily limit the # of reference points, or
approximate the configuration of the border
zones.
The GPS device has the inherent
functionality to initialize multiple points in a
non-linear configuration, and can be
programmed to do so with relative ease.
Each Reference Zone should be mapped-out,
or Geofenced, with precision & detail,
incorporating all the points required for
complete coverage of the local network
access/egress patterns
(Chart #8)
Phase 3: Implementation Cost Scenario
(Chart #9)
Cost Components
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Potential # of Trips Generated
Equipment Adaptation
$10,000.00 ($5,000/vendor)
N/A
Piggy-back Monthly
Service Fees
$60,000/yr
(0-1250 vehicles $2,500.00/
month/vendor)
$10,000.00 ($5,000/vendor)
40,000-60,000 yr 1 (20-30,000/vendor)
60,000-90,000 yr 2 (30-45,000/ vendor)
GPS Units
$55,000-85,000/100units ($550.00850.00/unit)
20-50,000 trips/yr
GPS Readers- all units
$7,000.00- 8,500.00
N/A
GPS Probe Unit
Monthly Service Fees
On-going R&D
$10-15/unit/ month
$12,000-18,000/100 units/year
$20,000
N/A
Year 1
$174,000-211,500 (2 vendors)
60-110,000 (2 vendors)
Year 2
$ 72,000-78,000 (2 vendors)
80-140,000 (2 vendors)
Total
$ 246, 000-289,500 (2 vendors)
140,000-250,000 (2 vendors)
Web Page Interface
N/A
……. relative to Real Time measurement ?
 A Real Time management solution will likely include not one but rather an
integrated set of performance measurement tools:
 ……. certain tools are better suited for specific purposes
 Implementing a (GPS) “live-time” data procurement program would, over 1-2
years, accumulate wait-time data in sufficient volumes to establish an
empirical baseline & benchmark performance standards that will compliment
evolving real-time measures.
 ……an “early-win” opportunity
 Today’s real-time measure is tomorrow’s data record, …… the initial entry in a
time-series continuum.
 As data begins to accumulate, a 2, 3 to 5 day (processing) turnaround time
does not preclude routine publication of reports/updates, much like the system
of Dashboard reports developed by FHWA to report on congested Urban
corridors
 If/when Reader & Repeater devices, with a rapid download capability, are
installed at border crossing exits points, the current 2-5 day processing lag
would be reduced to near real-time proportions
Phase 3 Implementation: Workplan Scenario
Program Facilitation
Program Development: Specifications & Design
Procurement & Contract Initiation
Program Deployment, Data Management & Reporting
Carriers
 Recruit Carriers
 Data Access Agreements
Data Management
 Data base analysis
 Web-posting
 Data mgmt & reporting
 Dashboard reports
 Benchmarks & Standards
Co-venture Partners
 Cost-shares
Cooperation Agreements
Project Personnel
 project staffing
 technical support
Program Design
 Delineate Reference Zones
 Prgm.Code/Algorithms
 Probe Specifications
 Data Mgmt/Reporting cycle
 Web Access Criteria
 Probe Deployment Strategy
Contract Specifications
 Submit Contract Specifications
Requisition Contract Services
 RFP/Contracting Docs.
 Hardware procurement
 Data Services Contracting
 Evaluation/Awards
Contract Agreements
Probe Management
 Deployment schedules
 Technical mn’tnce mgmt.
Contract Administration
 Quality control
.Mgmt. Reporting
 Review & evaluation
Border Wait Times
Data Annex
Ambassador Bridge Crossings
U.S.-bound
Canada-bound
Ambassador Bridge: Wait Times by Date
Ambassador Bridge (ON)
Distribution of Total Crossing Times
Ambassador Bridge (ON)
Crossing Times by Date
22
7
15
0
12
0
13
0
10
0
10
9
90
Crossing Times
# of Crossings
12
4
76
58
48
41
37
33
29
25
21
17
9
5
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
11
/5
/2
00
1
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
9/
1/
20
02
12
/1
0/
20
02
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
Border Crossing Time
81
Ambassador Bridge (MI)
Distribution of Total Crossing Times
Frequency
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
72
# of Crossings
BCT
Ambassador Bridge (MI)
Crossing Times by Date
Total Crossing Time
63
14
Minutes
13
TCT
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
12
/1
0/
20
02
9/
1/
20
02
11
/5
/2
00
1
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
0
54
50
46
100
38
150
30
Frequency
200
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
22
250
Ambassador Bridge: Wait Times by Month & Weekday
Ambassador Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Weekday
Ambassador Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Month
70
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
60
50
40
30
20
10
Avg TCt
Avg. BCT
Avg. TCT
Ambassador Bridge (MI)
Average Crossing Times by Month
Sa
tu
rd
ay
Fr
id
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
W
ed
ne
sd
ay
ay
Tu
es
d
M
on
da
y
Su
nd
ay
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly
(2
00
2)
Se
pt
(0
2)
N
ov
(0
2)
Ja
n(
03
)
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly
(0
3)
Se
pt
(0
3)
0
Avg. BCT
Ambassador Bridge (MI)
Average Crossing Times by Weekday
14
25
12
20
10
15
8
10
6
4
0
2
TCT
BCT
TCT
BCT
Sa
tu
rd
ay
Fr
id
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
W
ed
ne
da
y
ay
Tu
es
d
M
on
da
y
0
Su
nd
ay
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly
(2
00
2)
Se
pt
(0
2)
N
ov
(0
2)
Ja
n(
03
)
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly
(0
3)
Se
pt
(0
3)
5
Ambassador Bridge: Wait Times by Time of Day
Ambassador Bridge (ON)
Average Speed thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
Ambassador Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
80
60
70
50
60
Km/hr
50
40
30
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
Avg. TCT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
Avg. Speed
Avg. BCT
Ambassador Bridge (MI)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
Ambassador Bridge (MI)
Average Speed thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
16
100
14
80
10
60
Km/hr
12
8
6
4
40
20
2
Avg. Speed
22
20
18
16
14
12
8
6
4
10
22
20
18
0
BCT
16
14
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
TCT
2
0
0
Bluewater Bridge Crossings
U.S.-bound
Canada-bound
Bluewater Bridge: Wait Times by Date
Bluewater Bridge (ON)
Distribution of Total Crossing Times
Bluewater Bridge (ON)
Crossing Times by Date
400
350
250
Frequency
200
150
100
50
300
250
200
150
100
BCT
BCT
Minutes
# of Crossings
89
10
4
11
5
13
9
81
12
2
75
64
57
49
40
33
25
11
/5
/2
00
1
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
9/
1/
20
02
12
/1
0/
20
02
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
0
18
20
11
40
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
4
Frequency
60
74
Bluewater Bridge (MI)
Distribution of Crossing Times
120
80
67
# of Crossings
140
100
60
53
46
Minutes
Bluewater Bridge (MI)
Crossing Times by Date
TCT
39
32
25
11
12
/1
0/
20
02
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
9/
1/
20
02
11
/5
/2
00
1
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
TCT
18
50
0
0
Bluewater Bridge: Wait Times by Month & Weekday
Bluewater Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Weekday
Bluewater Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Month
40
Avg. BCT
Avg. TCT
Avg. BCT
Bluewater Bridge (MI)
Average Crossing Times by Weekday
Bluewater Bridge (MI)
Average Crossing Times by Month
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly
(2
00
2)
Se
pt
(0
2)
N
ov
(0
2)
Ja
n(
03
)
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly
(0
3)
Se
pt
(0
3)
0
TCT
BCT
TCT
BCT
Sa
tu
rd
ay
5
Fr
id
ay
10
Th
ur
sd
ay
15
W
ed
ne
sd
ay
20
ay
25
Tu
es
d
30
Su
nd
ay
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
35
M
on
da
y
Avg. TCT
Sa
tu
rd
ay
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly
(2
00
2)
Se
pt
(0
2)
N
ov
(0
2)
Ja
n(
03
)
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly
(0
3)
Se
pt
(0
3)
0
Fr
id
ay
5
Th
ur
sd
ay
10
W
ed
ne
da
y
15
ay
20
Tu
es
d
25
M
on
da
y
30
Su
nd
ay
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35
Bluewater Bridge: Wait Times by Time of Day
Bluewater Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
Bluewater Bridge (ON)
Average Spped thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
40
100
35
80
25
60
km/hr
30
20
15
40
10
20
5
20
22
20
22
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
Avg. BCT
Avg. Speed
Bluewater Bridge (MI)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
Bluewater Bridge (MI)
Average Speed thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
70
60
Km/hr
50
40
30
20
10
TCT
BCT
Avg. Speed
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
0
2
0
4
0
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Avg. TCT
2
0
0
Peace Bridge Crossings
Canada-bound
U.S.-bound
Peace Bridge: Wait Times by Date
Peace Bridge (ON)
Distribution of Total Crossing Times
Peace Bridge (ON)
Crossing Times by Date
140
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Frequency
120
100
80
60
40
20
800
TCT
BCT
24
5
14
6
16
2
17
9
21
1
Minutes
# of Crossings
86
10
1
14
5
67
54
47
42
36
0
31
0
1
200
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
100
26
400
21
200
600
16
300
6
Frequency
500
400
11
4
13
0
99
84
Peace Bridge (NY)
Distribtution of Total Crossing Times
1000
12
/1
0/
20
02
69
# of Crossings
600
9/
1/
20
02
54
Border Crossing Time
Peace Bridge (NY)
Crossing Times by Date
11
/5
/2
00
1
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
39
24
Minutes
11
Total Crossing Time
9
12
/1
0/
20
02
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
9/
1/
20
02
11
/5
/2
00
1
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
0
Peace Bridge: Wait Times by Month & Weekday
Peace Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Weekday
Peace Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Month
70
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
60
50
40
30
20
10
Peace Bridge (NY)
Average Crossing Times by Month
Avg. BCT
Sa
tu
rd
ay
Avg. TCT
Fr
id
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
ay
Tu
es
d
M
on
da
y
Avg. BCT
W
ed
ne
da
y
Avg. TCT
Su
nd
ay
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly
(2
00
2)
Se
pt
(0
2)
N
ov
(0
2)
Ja
n(
03
)
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly
(0
3)
Se
pt
(0
3)
0
Peace Bridge (NY)
Average Crossing Times by Weekday
16
25
14
20
12
15
10
8
10
6
4
0
2
TCT
BCT
TCT
BCT
Sa
tu
rd
ay
Fr
id
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
W
ed
ne
da
y
ay
Tu
es
d
M
on
da
y
0
Su
nd
ay
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly
(2
00
2)
Se
pt
(0
2)
N
ov
(0
2)
Ja
n(
03
)
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly
(0
3)
Se
pt
(0
3)
5
Peace Bridge: Wait Times by Time of Day
Peace Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
Peace Bridge (ON)
Average Speed thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
70
70
60
50
50
km/hr
60
40
30
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0 1
2
3 4
5
6 7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Avg. TCT
Avg. Speed
Avg. BCT
Peace Bridge (NY)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
Peace Bridge (NY)
Average Speed thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
18
120
16
100
12
80
km/hr
14
10
8
60
6
40
4
20
2
Avg. Speed
22
20
18
16
14
12
8
6
4
10
22
20
18
0
BCT
16
14
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
TCT
2
0
0
Queenston/Lewiston Crossings
U.S.-bound
Canada-bound
Q/L Bridge: Wait Times by Date
Queenston/Lewiston Bridge (ON)
Distribution of Total Crossing Times
Queenston/Lewiston Bridge (ON)
Crossing Times by Date
300
100
200
80
Frequency
250
150
100
50
60
40
20
0
11
2
14
6
63
10
1
87
78
69
60
51
42
33
24
15
58
TCT
6
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
9/
1/
20
02
12
/1
0/
20
02
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
0
Minutes
BCT
# of Crossings
Lewuiston Queenston Bridge (NY)
Average Crossing TImes by Date
Lewiston/Queenston (NY)
Distribution of Total Crossing Times
70
250
60
200
Frequency
50
40
30
20
150
100
50
10
Avg. TCT
Minutes
# of Crossings
55
51
31
25
19
16
13
10
7
11
/5
/2
00
1
2/
13
/2
00
2
5/
24
/2
00
2
9/
1/
20
02
12
/1
0/
20
02
3/
20
/2
00
3
6/
28
/2
00
3
10
/6
/2
00
3
1/
14
/2
00
4
Avg. BCT
4
0
0
Q/L Bridge: Wait Times by Month & Weekday
Queenston/Lew iston Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Tim es By Month
Queenston/Lewiston Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Weekday
70
Average TCT
Avg. TCT
Average BCT
Avg. BCT
Lewiston/Queenston (NY)
Average Crossing Times by Day of Week
Lewiston/Queenston Bridge (NY)
Average Crossing Times by Month
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sa
tu
rd
ay
Su
nd
ay
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly
(0
2)
Sp
t (0
2)
N
ov
(0
2)
Ja
n(
03
))
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly
(0
3)
Se
pt
(0
3)
0
Fr
id
ay
10
Th
ur
sd
ay
20
W
ed
ne
sd
ay
30
ay
40
Tu
es
d
50
M
on
da
y
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
60
12
10
8
6
4
2
Avg. TCT
Avg. BCT
Avg. TCT
Avg. BCT
Sa
tu
rd
ay
Fr
id
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
W
ed
ne
da
y
Tu
es
da
y
M
on
da
y
Su
nd
ay
Ja
n(
02
)
M
ar
(0
2)
M
ay
(0
2)
Ju
ly (
20
02
)
Se
pt
(0
2)
No
v(
02
)
Ja
n(
03
)
M
ar
(0
3)
M
ay
(0
3)
Ju
ly (
03
)
Se
pt
(0
3)
0
Q/L Bridge: Wait Times by Time of Day
Queenston/Lewiston Bridge (ON)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
Queenston/Lewiston Bridge (ON)
Average Speed thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
60
100
50
80
km/hr
40
30
60
40
20
20
10
20
22
20
22
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
Avg. Speed
Avg. BCT
Lewiston/Queenston Bridge (NY)
Average Crossing Times by Time of Day
Queenston/Lewiston Bridge (NY)
Average Speed thru Transit Zone by Time of Day
18
200
16
14
150
km/hr
12
10
8
6
100
50
4
2
Avg. Speed
18
16
14
12
8
6
4
10
22
20
0
Avg. BCT
18
16
14
12
8
6
4
2
10
Avg. TCT
2
0
0
0
4
0
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Avg. TCT
2
0
0