2017 Transit Report Card of Major Canadian Regions

Commuter rail icons made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com is licensed by CC 3.0 BY. Other icons made by Scott de Jonge from www.flaticon.com is licensed by CC 3.0 BY. Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

About the Author:

Nathan has been writing, researching, and talking about issues that affect the livability of Metro Vancouver, with a focus on the South of Fraser, for close to a decade. He has been featured in local, regional, and national media.

In 2008, Nathan co-founded South Fraser OnTrax—a sustainable transportation advocacy organization—and the Greater Langley Cycling Coalition in 2009. He is currently serving as a councillor in the City of Langley.

Nathan previously published his research on land use and the ALR in his report, “Decade of Exclusions? A Snapshot of the Agricultural Land Reserve from 2000-2009 in the South of Fraser” (2010).

He also co-authored “Leap Ahead: A transit plan for Metro Vancouver” with Paul Hillsdon in 2013. This plan was a precursor to the 2014 Mayors’ Council on Regional Transporta- tion Plan for Metro Vancouver.

Nathan has served on various municipal committees including the Abbotsford Inter-regional Transportation Select Committee and the City of Langley Parks and Envi- ronment Advisory Committee.

Nathan would like to recognize Paul Hillsdon who provided the original concept of this report, and provided research early on in the process.

More information is available on the South Fraser Blog. (http://www.southfraser.net/) Introduction

This is the third edition of the annual Transit Report Card of Major Canadian Regions, and for some regions is bad news.

This is the first year that regions have received a “C” grade. Ottawa received a “C” grade due to its three-year decline in passenger trip intensity. In Greater Toronto and Hamilton, the combined increase in operating cost per passenger trip, and a decline in transit service hours per capita, result- Transit Agencies Reviewed: ed in its “C” grade. Greater Calgary Greater Calgary’s and Metro Vancouver’s grades increased. In Calgary, its Airdrie Transit passenger trip intensity grade increase resulted in the region getting an Calgary Transit overall “A” grade. Containing operating costs per service hour resulted in Metro Vancouver’s TransLink receiving its first overall “A+” grade. Greater Edmonton Edmonton Transit System Overall, Canadian regions are doing more with less when it comes to Leduc Transit delivering transit services. Unfortunately, the amount of transit service St. Albert Transit provided in our major regions is not keeping pace with population growth. Strathcona County Transit This is reflected in the continued decline inservice hours per capita nationwide. Greater Toronto & Hamilton Brampton Transit Due to their limited financial resources, Canadian transit agencies have Burlington Transit reviewed how and where transit service is delivered to become more Durham Region Transit efficient.Passenger trip intensity, a measure of efficiency, has increased GO Transit nationally over the last three years as a result. Hamilton Street Railway Milton Transit There in only so much optimization that can be done before it simply be- MiWay comes reduced service perform. This is starting to occur in some Canadi- Oakville Transit an regions. Toronto Transit Commission York Region Transit/Viva This report card is based on information from 2015. In 2016, the federal government significantly increased investment in public transit; public Metro Vancouver transit is a key part of the federal infrastructure agenda. This investment TransLink is being match by provinces, and should result in an improvement in transit service. Greater Montreal Agence métropolitaine de transport In the next few years, there should also be an increase in transit service Réseau de transport de Longueuil hours per capita in major regions because of this renewed investment Société de transport de Laval being made by all levels of government. This investment will address Société de transport de Montréal over-crowded and unreliable service on the busiest transit routes in the nation, and lack of service in other parts of Canadian regions. National Capital Region OC Transpo The negative trends seen in the last three Transit Report Cards should Société de transport de l’Outaouais start to reverse as new transit services come online.

Transit plays a vital role in keeping Canada’s big cities moving, driving economic growth and prosperity. Taking transit also makes people happier, healthier, and is good for the environment. Investing in transit service is key to the future success of our major Canadian regions.

Reference: Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf( ) Measuring Success: The Economic Impact of Transit Investment in Canada (http://cutaactu.ca/sites/default/files/issue_paper_35e.pdf) Commuting for happiness (http://thehappycity.com/commuting-happiness/)

3 Understanding the Report Indicators and Letter Grades

Revenue Kilometres per Service Hour:

An indication of the distance transit goes for every hour of service delivered. A higher number indicates that transit service operates at a faster speed, over a larger service area, or both.

Farebox Recovery:

An indication of what portions of direct operating expenses are covered by transit-users’ fares, and what portions of direct operating expenses are covered by taxation. A higher percentage means that a higher portion of direct operating expenses are covered by transit users’ fares. The remainder of funding from transit comes from taxation. Direct operating expenses in- cludes the cost to operate transit service, but does not include the cost of assets such as buses, trains, and railway tracks.

Operating Cost per Service Hour:

An indication of how much money it costs to run transit service per hour. This indicator does not include the cost of purchasing new infrastructure such as buses, replacing aging infrastructure, or transit service expansion. Labour, vehicle fuel, and vehicle maintenance costs play a large roll in this indicator, as does the cost of fuel.

Operating Cost per Passenger Trip:

An indication of the efficiency of the transit network. Generally, the more passengers that use transit for each hour of service provided will result in a more efficient system. The indicator also take into account how much it cost to provide each hour of service.

Regional Report 4 Understanding the Report Indicators and Letter Grades

Passenger Trips per Capita:

An indication of the amount of transit use in a region. A higher number means that more people use transit in a region, and use transit more frequently. While how communities are designed (people-centric or auto-centric) will impact Passenger Trips per Capita, the amount of transit service provided–Service Hours per Capita–will have a greater impact on Passenger Trips per Capita.

Passenger Trips per Service Hour :

An indication of the productivity of the transit network. More passenger trips per service hour means that transit service is being provided in areas where there is demand. Lower passenger trips per service hour means that transit service is being provided where the demand is lower. For example, running a bus every 15 minutes along suburban routes in regions like Edmonton will yield a lower Passenger Trips per Service Hour metric, than running a bus every 15 minutes in accessible communities as on Montreal Island. Passenger Trips per Service Hour is a good indicator if a region’s land-use aligns with the transit services provided. Pas- senger Trips per Service Hour are influenced by Service Hours per Capita. The more service hours delivered per capita will increase passenger trips per service hour.

Passenger Trip Intensity:

An indicator of the productivity of a transit system that is adjusted for the Service Hours per Capita. Regions with a higher score have transit systems that align more closely with transit service demand than systems with a lower score.

Regional Report 5 Understanding the Report Indicators and Letter Grades

A Grade Better than expected when compared to other regions in this report.

B Grade Comparable to other regions in this report.

C Grade Lower than expected when compared to other regions in this report.

Every region starts with a “B” score. For each “A” received for an indicator, 1 is added, for each “C” received, 1 is subtracted. If a region scores a +1, an “A” is awarded for the overall grade. If a region scores a -1, a “C” is awarded for the overall grade. If a re- Overall gion scores +/- 1, a plus or minus if added to the Grade “A” or “C” received.

Regional Report 6 Greater Calgary 2015 + 2015 Revenue Kilometres 2015 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 A B B B B B B 2014

2015 Operating Cost 2015 Passenger Trip Per Service Hour Intensity B 2014 2013 2014 2013 2013 A B B A B B B 2015 Operating Cost 2015 Farebox Per Trip Recovery 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B

2015 Passenger Trips 2015 Service Hours Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B

Comments:

Transit service in the Calgary region continued the three-year trend of service hour per capita reduction. This is in-line with what it happening nationally in major regions. The investment in transit service in Calgary, like other regions, is not keeping up with demand.

Operating costs per service hour increased at a slower rate than other major regions, moving Cal- gary to an “A” grade in the metric.

Despite the reduction in service hours, the region’s passenger trip intensity score moved from a “B” to an “A” making this region on par with Metro Vancouver which also received an “A+” grade.

Regional Report 7 Greater Edmonton 2015

2015 Revenue Kilometres 2015 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B B 2014

2015 Operating Cost 2015 Passenger Trip Per Service Hour Intensity B 2014 2013 2014 2013 2013 A A A B B B A 2015 Operating Cost 2015 Farebox Per Trip Recovery 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B C C B

2015 Passenger Trips 2015 Service Hours Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B

Comments:

Transit service in the Edmonton region maintained its “B” grade. While still maintaining its “B” grade for passenger trip intensity, the underlying metric improved significantly from 17.3 in 2014 to 19.7, closing the efficiency gap between it and other regions.

Greater Edmonton continues to have the lowest operating cost per service hour of all regions evaluated in this report card.

Farebox recovery in the Edmonton region continues to underperform compared to other major regions.

Regional Report 8 Greater Montreal 2015 +++ 2015 Revenue Kilometres 2015 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 A B B B A A A 2014 +++ 2015 Operating Cost 2015 Passenger Trip Per Service Hour Intensity A 2014 2013 2014 2013 2013 B B C B B B ++ A 2015 Operating Cost 2015 Farebox Per Trip Recovery 2014 2013 2014 2013 A A A B B B

2015 Passenger Trips 2015 Service Hours Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 A A A A A A

Comments:

Greater Montreal continues to be the Canadian transit leader of all regions measured. This region saw a slight increase in the underlying metric for revenue kilometre per service hour and passenger trip intensity.

Other underlying metrics declined slightly between 2014 and 2015. Of concern is the decline of service hours per capita over the last three years which indicates that investment in transit service hasn’t kept up with population growth in the region.

Regional Report 9 GTHA - Toronto/Hamilton 2015

2015 Revenue Kilometres 2015 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 C B B B B B B 2014

2015 Operating Cost 2015 Passenger Trip Per Service Hour Intensity B 2014 2013 2014 2013 2013 B B B C C C B 2015 Operating Cost 2015 Farebox Per Trip Recovery 2014 2013 2014 2013 C C B A A A

2015 Passenger Trips 2015 Service Hours Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B A B

Comments:

Transit service in the GTHA received a “C” grade this year due to a decrease in service hours per capita. The region continues to underperform in operating cost per passenger trip and passenger trip intensity.

While passenger trip intensity in the GTHA is still low, the underlying metric improved dramatically between 2014 and 2015, moving from 14.3 to 16.6, though more improvement will be needed to get the region near the median of 19.7.

The region maintained the highest farebox recovery of all regions measured, though it has slipped from 67% in 2013 to 64% in 2015.

Regional Report 10 Metro Vancouver 2015 + 2015 Revenue Kilometres 2015 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 A A A A B B B 2014

2015 Operating Cost 2015 Passenger Trip Per Service Hour Intensity A 2014 2013 2014 2013 2013 B C C A A A A 2015 Operating Cost 2015 Farebox Per Trip Recovery 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B

2015 Passenger Trips 2015 Service Hours Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B

Comments:

Metro Vancouver had its best overall score this year moving to an A+. The region continues to have the highest Passenger Trip Intensity grade of all the regions measured in the report card.

Metro Vancouver increased its grade for operating cost per service hour. While this region continues to have the highest operating cost per service hour, other regions’ operating costs per service hour have been increasing at a faster rate than in Metro Vancouver, closing this gap.

The region also maintained its status as having the best revenue kilometres per service hour grade which means that transit service in the region is slightly faster than other regions in Canada. This metric has been slowly declining in Metro Vancouver over the last three years.

Regional Report 11 National Capital Region 2015

2015 Revenue Kilometres 2015 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 C B B B B B B 2014

2015 Operating Cost 2015 Passenger Trip Per Service Hour Intensity B 2014 2013 2014 2013 2013 B B B C B B B 2015 Operating Cost 2015 Farebox Per Trip Recovery 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B

2015 Passenger Trips 2015 Service Hours Per Service Hour Per Capita 2014 2013 2014 2013 B B B B B B

Comments:

The National Capital Region received a “C” grades this year due to its passenger trip intensity grade. For three straight years, this metric has been declining in the region. While transit service hours per capita has increased, there is a mismatch between where service hours are being delivered and transit service demand.

Other regions in Canada have performed transit efficiency reviews. Based on those reviews, these agencies have adjusted where transit service is provided and demanded, resulting in higher passenger trip intensity scores.

Regional Report 12 National Report Year over Year Chanages

25 Comments:

22.2039 21.9996 21.9142 Congestion, transit stop spacing, transit stop dwell 20 time, major construction, and rail “slow zones” all impact the speed of transit service, and this metric. The introduction of transit priority measures such as transit-only lanes and fixing “slow zones” im- 15 proves transit service speed. Introducing all-door boarding also improves transit service speed.

Nationally, there was a slight improvement in this 10 metric primarily due to improvements in the GTHA. Some examples of service improvement include the reintroducing of streetcar service in dedicated right-of-ways along two busy corridors in Toronto. 5 Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/509_Harbourfront 2015 2014 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/510_Spadina 0 Revenue Kilometre Per Service Hour 200

$170.03 $156.43 $152.68 150

100 Comments:

There was a significant increase in operating cost per service hour nationally. This was primarily due 50 to labour and contracted service cost increases nationwide, combined with a 5.7% year-over-year reduction in Edmonton and 6.8% year-over-year reduction in the GTHA, of reported transit revenue 2015 2014 2013 service hours. 0 Operating Cost Per Service Hour 13 National Report Year over Year Chanages

4.0

$3.76 $3.55 $3.51 3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5 Comments:

1.0 There was a 6% increase of this metric between 2014 and 2015. This was due to the increased costs 0.5 of labour and contracted services, combined with a flatlining of transit passenger trips in the same 2015 2014 2013 period. 0.0 Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip 50

43.0761 43.0302 43.6220 40

20 Comments:

There was little change in this metric between 2014 and 2015. Nationally, there was a 3.1% redu- 10 tion in transit revenue service mainly due to reduc- tions in Edmonton and the GHTA. At the same time, there was only minor growth in passenger trips at 2015 2014 2013 a national level. 0 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour 14 National Report Year over Year Chanages

100 97.7693 97.5315 98.6930

Comments:

60 Nationally, people took fewer transit trips per capita. While this metric is linked with service hours per capita—providing more transit service results in more people taking transit—the rate of unemploy- 40 ment also influences the number of people taking transit as a significant amount of transit trips are for getting to and from work. There was a rise in 20 unemployment in many major Canadian regions in 2015.

Reference: 2015 2014 2013 Statistics Canada: Table 282-0135 0 Passenger Trips Per Capita 20 19.7053 18.4851 18.4316

Comments:

5 Transit agencies that service Canada’s major regions saw an increase in passenger trip intensity. This indicates that the productivity and efficiency of Canada’s transit agencies have improved, 2015 2014 2013 matching transit service to demand. 0 Passenger Trip Intensity 15 National Report Year over Year Chanages

51.50 51.50 51.50 50

20 Comments:

The percentage of transit revenue collected from direct user fees has remained unchanged in Cana- 10 da. Direct user fees collected have kept pace with the operating cost per trip to provide transit ser- 2015 2014 2013 vice. 0 Farebox Recovery 2.5

2.3104 2.3485 2.2609

2.0

1.5

1.0 Comments:

Service hours per capita has decreased nationally. This means that new transit service hours provided 0.5 haven’t kept pace with population growth. This im- pacts the number of people that take transit due to increased crowding on some transit routes, infre- 2015 2014 2013 quent service, and no service where it is needed. 0.0 Service Hours Per Capita 16 Transit Report Card Detailed Indicators

Revenue Operating Operating Passenger Passenger Passenger Trip Farebox Service Hours Kilometres Cost Cost Trips Trips Intensity Recovery Per Capita Per Service Per Service Per Trip Per Service Per Capita Hour Hour Hour The Regions Greater Calgary: 2015 22.1 $152.89 $3.49 43.7 85.4 22.4 51% 2.0 2014 22.3 $147.08 $3.36 43.8 88.4 21.7 51% 2.0 2013 21.9 $146.17 $3.34 43.8 89.8 21.4 52% 2.1 Greater Edmonton: 2015 21.3 $146.10 $3.59 40.7 84.1 19.7 41% 2.1 2014 21.7◊ $130.89◊ $3.39◊ 38.7◊ 86.6◊ 17.3◊ 44% 2.2◊ 2013 21.6ꭞ $129.04 $3.42 37.7 88.2 16.1 44% 2.3 Greater Montreal: 2015 22.3 $180.21 $3.09 58.2 172.1 19.7 52% 3.0 2014 22.2 $173.31 $2.97 58.4 177.8 19.2 52% 3.0 2013 22.1 $170.14 $2.98 57.1 176.7 18.4 50% 3.1 Toronto & Hamilton: 2015 22.3 $178.61 $4.21 42.4 107.9 16.7 64% 2.5 2014 21.7 $155.66 $3.96 39.3 108.4 14.3 65% 2.8 2013 21.8 $148.54 $3.75 39.6 105.7 14.8 67% 2.7 Metro Vancouver: 2015 24.5 $186.29 $4.00 46.6 94.5 23.0 53% 2.0 2014 24.7 $181.47 $3.86 47.0 94.3 23.4 55% 2.0 2013 24.9 $176.82 $3.73 47.2 94.9 23.5 57% 2.0 National Capital: 2015 21.8 $161.46 $3.92 41.1 101.0 16.7 49% 2.5 2014 21.8 $157.19 $3.72 42.3 100.8 17.8 51% 2.4 2013 21.9 $156.82 $3.61 43.5 102.5 18.4 51% 2.4

Analysis Revenue Operating Operating Passenger Passenger Passenger Farebox Service Hours Kilometres Cost Cost Trips Trips Trip Recovery Per Capita Per Service Per Service Per Trip Per Service Per Capita Intensity Hour Hour Hour Median: 2015 22.2 $170.03 $3.76 43.1 97.8 19.7 51.5% 2.3 2014 22.0 $156.43 $3.55 43.0 97.5 18.5 51.5% 2.3 2013 21.9 $152.68 $3.51 43.6 98.7 18.4 51.5% 2.3 Standard Deviation: 2015 21.1 $153.63 $3.35 36.5 64.9 17.0 44.1% 1.9 Low Value 2014 20.9 $138.29 $3.18 35.7 63.0 15.2 44.6% 1.9 2013 20.6ꭞ $135.50 $3.22 36.7 65.1 15.2 43.7% 1.9 Standard Deviation: 2015 23.3 $186.44 $4.16 50.0 130.7 22.4 58.9% 2.7 High Value 2014 23.2 $174.56 $3.92 50.3 132.0 21.8 58.4% 2.7 2013 23.2ꭞ $169.97 $3.81 50.5 132.3 21.7 59.3% 2.8

Note on the Data: Standard deviation of 1σ used, and is based on the region’s sample group. Standard deviation used in this analysis shows the normal range of value. Value out of 1σ shows better (or worse) than typical performance. All public transit agencies that serve each region are included in this table.

ꭞ These values reflect the updated data from the Canada Transit Fact Book – 2014 Operating Data. The Greater Edmonton value would be 20.4 based on data in the Canada Transit Fact Book – 2013 Operating Data.

◊These values reflect the data from the Canada Transit Fact Book – 2014 Operating Data. Based on data in the Canada Transit Fact Book – 2015 Operating Data, the values would be as follows: Revenue Kilometre per Service Hour (24.5); Operating Cost per Service Hour ($143.05); Passenger Trips per Service Hour (42.2); Passenger Trips per Capita (86.6); Passenger Trip Intensity (20.6); Service Hours per Capita (2.04); Operating Cost per Passenger Trip ($3.39).

Source: Information derived from Canada Transit Fact Book – 2015 Operating Data by Canadian Urban Transit Association