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 re- ceived 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 in service hours per capita na- tionwide. 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 tran- sit 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 op- erating 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 peo- ple 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 sys- tem that is adjusted for the Service Hours per Capita. Regions with a higher score have transit systems that align more closely with transit ser- vice 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 re- duction. 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.