Mixed Signals Toronto Transit in a North American Context Fares – Networks – Budgets – Governance 2018 Mixed Signals 2018 About CodeRedTO Report Authors & Contributors CodeRedTO is a consciously non-partisan, volunteer-run, local and regional transit advocate. We promote more and better transit options for more residents; using all available technologies where appropriate; creating better information for better decision-making; completion of efficient and approved plans; and support increased, predictable funding for public transit expansion and operation. Cameron MacLeod is a CodeRedTO cofounder and Executive Director, and has explored transit systems in 25 cities worldwide, in ten countries and on three continents. So far. By day he runs a nationwide technical team at a Canadian customer intelligence software company. CodeRedTO is funded through personal donations and grants from non-profit agencies and foundations, and directed by an advisory board with no financial interest in any transportation projects or agencies. CodeRedTO was founded in 2011. info@CodeRedTO.com Patricia Wood is Professor of Geography and co-founder of the City Institute at York University. She has particular interests in democratic practices and people’s mobility. She is also an urban affairs columnist for Spacing.ca. Matthew Whittier is a graduate of Queen's University in Mechanical Engineering, who has worked in renewable energy and whose interest in urban planning and transportation brought him into this project. Benjamin Wert works in arts administration, and has a keen interest in municipal affairs. His favourite transit experiences include riding every L line in Chicago from end to end, going across Toronto’s Price Edward Viaduct at twilight, and using the Roosevelt Island tramway. @CodeRedTO Acknowledgements CodeRedTO This report would not exist without the efforts of dedicated TTC, City of Toronto, and Metrolinx employees, and transit-involved teams across North America bringing safe and reliable public transit to residents each day, under (as this report shows) significantly challenging variations in funding, network resilience, and governmental accountability. Mixed Signals 2018 Executive Summary This report compares Toronto to similar local and commuter rail transit systems in several cities in Canada and the United States, examining specifics of fares, funding, network coverage, and governance. The goal of the comparisons is to see what Toronto is doing well and how it could do better. Toronto has… Transit networks are highly complex and dynamic systems. While there is no perfect or universal model, there is always something to learn from how other cities build and manage transit. This report finds that Toronto is lagging behind other comparator cities in key ways, while outperforming in others. Any changes to Toronto’s regional transit network structures must be considered on the basis of both transparency and local accountability. • Transit systems in Asia and Europe have impressive achievements, but they emerge from different political and geographical environments. Similarly, New York City’s subway comes from an entirely different time period and starting point. Comparing Toronto’s transit with other systems in Canada and the United States shows us what is realistic in the North American context. • • Given our unique and vulnerable position in terms of funding structures, network design, and expansion choices, this report finds specific investment goals desirable to protect the future of public transit in Toronto. ◼ • • • 2nd-Highest public transit ridership level in NA 2nd-Highest public transit commuter mode share in NA Strong suburban coverage and service levels Toronto needs… • • • • An improved funding model to address low subsidy level and lack of dedicated revenue streams A less-politicized, more resilient governance structure More complexity in its rapid transit network Less reliance on tunneled infrastructure in the current limited funding environment A more accessible monthly pass CodeRedTO recommends these immediate investments: • Add new, predictable, sustainable revenue Add prioritized surface transit lanes on both inner core and suburban avenues Reduce overall cost and early commitment requirements for monthly passes CodeRedTO recommends these longer-term goals: • • • Create new city-centred but regionally-collaborative governance structures Implement regional fare integration which builds on the city’s successful no-zone flat fare structure Implement regional network integration only where it can build increased ridership and mode share 1 Mixed Signals 2018 Comparator City Selection Regardless of criteria, any selection of cities will have faults and negative effects on the comparison itself. In this report, an attempt was made to provide a reasonable breadth of comparisons across city and urban area populations, transit network complexity and modes, and relevance to Toronto. City Pop. Urban Area While a comparison to New York City’s iconic and extensive subway system is seemingly unavoidable in Toronto media and at City Council, it is inappropriate for this report. This area has an urban area population of over three times that of the GTA, and a heavy rail network which is multiple decades older. By contrast, Calgary’s network consists of a single transit mode, and features no regional commuter rail nor a modern fare card. Cities such as Philadelphia, San Diego, and Dallas have relevant network structures for the curious transit policy researcher, but were not included in this report. Heavy Rail Rail in Exclusive ROW Rail in NonExclusive ROW Regional Rail Service Multi-Mode and Multi-Line Fare Card System Rail, Bus, Parking, and… New York City MTA 8.6m 20.3m ◼ ◼  ◼  ◼ Los Angeles Metro 4.1m 13.3m ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ Toronto TTC 2.8m 7.2m ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ Chicago CTA 2.7m 9.5m ◼ ◼  ◼  ◼ Houston Metro 2.2m 6.8m  ◼ ◼   ◼ Montreal STM 1.8m 4.1m ◼ ◼  ◼  ◼ Philadelphia SEPTA 1.6m 6.1m ◼ ◼  ◼ ◼ ◼ San Diego MTS 1.4m 3.1m  ◼ ◼ ◼  ◼ Dallas DART 1.3m 7.4m  ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼  Calgary Transit 1.2m 1.4m  ◼ ◼    Washington DC Metro 0.7m 6.1m ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ Boston MBTA 0.7m 4.7m ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ Ferries Vancouver Translink 0.6m 2.5m  ◼  ◼ ◼ ◼ Ferries On-call / Taxibus On-call / Taxibus 2 Mixed Signals 2018 Fare Structures There is no perfect or universal structure for public transit fares. Costs, passes, structures, and even whether to charge at all vary widely around the world, but within North America we find similar fares, structures, and a remarkable continent-wide conclusion that public transit agencies shall charge for their service. The mobility options provided to residents are part of a city’s democratic practice. As we examine the costs to riders, we should be thinking about how to more efficiently provide more service, to more residents, and recognize the diversity of needs and payment capacity. It is also key to create a sustainable model to ensure longterm mobility within our cities. ◼ Our report found Toronto’s transit fares and goals contrast with other cities in key ways. Toronto’s principal transportation provider, the TTC, has broadly-typical public transit fares, with a cash fare of $3.25 Canadian, close to or matching Montreal, Boston, Chicago, and comparable to both Vancouver and Washington, D.C. All comparator city fares sit within the $1.60$3.25 CAD range for the single zone or the core zone, and up to around $7.80 CAD at peak for the distance-based and zone-based systems. The regional commuter rail systems typically have separate fare systems, rarely integrated with the core local agency, with exclusively distance-based fares. Toronto’s daily and weekly pass cost levels approach the median among the cities reviewed. But what sets it apart are its continentally-unique annual adult Metropass, and a significantly more costly monthly pass. All passes perform a some- Commonalities Differences • TTC fares have risen far above the rate of inflation over the last twenty years • A single fare zone for the core urban area, often across multiple modes • No fare capping option for the core urban transit system • Little regional fare integration • TTC the only agency examined with an annual pass option, disproportionately benefiting higher-income riders • TTC the only agency examined required to cover over twothirds of its operating expenses from the farebox what contradictory role for transit riders, as they are designed to provide a discount for highervolume use, but are usually only available to those with sufficient disposable income to pre-pay for the pass in expectation of benefiting later. One technology tool available with electronic fare cards is fare capping, which automatically reduces or eliminates the incremental cost to the rider once a certain threshold has been reached. GO Transit provides this in lieu of monthly passes, via the PRESTO card also being adopted by the TTC. However, fare capping remains rare even as electronic fare cards proliferate, due to perceived fare revenue risk. Some systems “split the difference,” such as Houston Metro’s requirement of a custom card in order to gain access to capping. Common to nearly all the reviewed cities is a single flat fare, an international best practice for transit access which provides dramatically different travel distances for the same fare. In an urban area with expensive core housing, this can be a form of travel subsidy from short-trip riders to long-trip riders. A remarkable commonality across nearly every city studied is the magnitude of fare increases: in every city outside Los Angeles, transit fares rose faster than inflation over the last twenty years, sometimes dramatically. The TTC’s adult cash fare rose 29% faster than inflation from 1998-2018. The most alarming discovery in CodeRedTO’s research has been that while all public transit agencies worldwide contribute to operating expenses via the farebox, the TTC relies on fares for two-thirds of its base operating budget, a level not seen in any other city in North America. When combined with inadequate and insecure funding, the vulnerability of the TTC is particularly acute. 3 Mixed Signals 2018 Toronto (TTC) $3.25 cash $3.00 fare card / token Transfer Rules Free transfers up to two hours in any direction with fare card. Fare Zones Single zone, single fare Separate Regional Fares GO commuter rail Zone fares $4.77-$18.50, monthly cap Daily Pass $12.50 (3.85x cash fare) Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 +87.50% +48.12% +45.24% Weekly Pass $43.75 (13.5x cash fare) Monthly Pass $146.25 (45x cash fare) Annual Pass $1,608.00 (41.23x cash fare, monthly) 1998 20-year Fare Δ +87.50% ($1.75 cash in 1998) 2002 TTC Fare 2006 2010 Canada Inflation 2014 2018 Ontario Inflation 4 Mixed Signals 2018 Boston (MBTA) $2.75 cash $2.25 fare card Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 +223.53% Transfer Rules Rail to rail: free First transfer to other modes: discounted within first two hours only Fare Zones Single zone, fare varies by mode Separate Regional Fares MBTA Commuter Rail Zone fares $2.25-$12.50 Daily Pass $12.00 (4.4x cash fare) +59.97% Weekly Pass $21.25 (7.7x cash fare) Monthly Pass $84.50 (30.7x cash fare) Annual Pass n/a +54.09% 1998 20-year Fare Δ +223.53% ($0.85 cash in 1998) 2002 MBTA Fare 2006 2010 USA Inflation 2014 2018 Boston Inflation 5 Mixed Signals 2018 Chicago (CTA) $3.00 cash $2.50 fare card Transfer Rules $0.25 for train or up to $0.30 for bus, for up to 2 additional rides within 2 hours. Only available using fare card. Fare Zones Single zone, fare varies by mode. Airport service +$5.00 Separate Regional Fares Metra Commuter Rail Zone fares, $4-$8.25 Daily Pass $10.00 (3.3x cash fare) Weekly Pass $33.00 (11x cash fare) Monthly Pass $105.00 (35x cash fare) Annual Pass n/a Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 +66.67% +54.09% +44.57% 1998 20-year Fare Δ +66.67% ($1.50 cash in 1998) 2002 CTA Fare 2006 2010 USA Inflation 2014 2018 Chicago Inflation 6 Mixed Signals 2018 Houston (Metro) $1.25 cash or fare card Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 +150.00% Transfer Rules Free transfers up to three hours in any direction with fare card. Fare Zones Single zone, single fare Separate Regional Fares Express Park & Ride bus service Zone fares $2.00-$4.50 Daily Pass $3.00 (2.4x cash fare) Monthly Pass n/a +54.91% +54.09% Weekly Pass n/a Annual Pass n/a 20-year Fare Δ +150.00% ($0.50 cash in 1998) 1998 2002 Metro Fare 2006 2010 USA Inflation 2014 2018 Houston Inflation 7 Mixed Signals 2018 Los Angeles (Metro) $1.75 cash or fare card Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 +63.60% Transfer Rules $0.50 for transfer to a non-Metro bus within 2 hours Fare Zones Single zone, single fare Separate Regional Fares Metrolink Commuter Rail Zone fares $2.75-$27.50 Daily Pass $7.00 (4x cash fare) Weekly Pass $25.00 (14.3x cash fare) Monthly Pass $100.00 (57.1x cash fare) Annual Pass n/a 20-year Fare Δ +63.60% ($1.35 cash in 1998) +54.09% +29.63% 1998 2002 L.A. Metro Fare 2006 2010 USA Inflation 2014 2018 L.A. Inflation 8 Mixed Signals 2018 Montreal (STM) $3.25 cash or fare card Transfer Rules Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 Single continuous trip (multi-vehicle) +75.68% Fare Zones Single zone, single fare Separate Regional Fares EXO commuter bus and rail Zone fares $4.75-$9.75 +45.24% Daily Pass $10.00 (3.1x cash fare) Weekly Pass $26.25 (8.1x cash fare) Monthly Pass $85.00 (26.2x cash fare) Annual Pass n/a 20-year Fare Δ +75.68% ($1.85 cash in 1998) +39.63% 1998 2002 STM Fare 2006 2010 Canada Inflation 2014 2018 Quebec Inflation 9 Mixed Signals 2018 Vancouver (Translink) $2.95-$5.70 cash (3 zones) $2.30-$4.40 fare card Transfer Rules Free transfers for 90 minutes Fare Zones 3 zones, airport exit +$5.00 Separate Regional Fares West Coast Express Commuter Rail Zone fares $6.25-$12.45 Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 +96.67% +45.24% Daily Pass $10.25 (5.4x 1-zone cash fare) Weekly Pass n/a +36.08% Monthly Pass $95.00 (32.2x 1-zone cash fare) Annual Pass n/a 20-year Fare Δ +96.67% ($1.50 cash in 1998) 1998 2002 Translink Fare 2006 2010 Canada Inflation 2014 2018 BC Inflation 10 Mixed Signals 2018 Washington, D.C. (WMATA) $2.25-$6.00 cash or fare card (distancebased, in peak hours) Transfer Rules Train: one single ride, no transfer Bus: free transfers up to two hours $0.50 discount if combining modes Fare Zones Combination of distance and zone Separate Regional Fares MARC and VRE Commuter Rail Zone fares $3.40-$13.00 Daily Pass $14.75 (6.6x 1-zone cash fare) Weekly Pass $60.00 (26.7x 1-zone cash fare) Monthly Pass n/a Annual Pass n/a Fares vs Inflation 1998-2018 +104.55% +60.01% +54.09% 1998 20-year Fare Δ +104.55% ($1.10 cash in 1998) 2002 Base Fare 2006 2010 USA Inflation 2014 2018 Wash. DC Inflation 11 Mixed Signals 2018 Base Cash Fare vs Inflation 1998-2018 Boston MBTA, +223.53% Houston Metro, +150.00% Wash. D.C. Metro, +104.55% Vancouver Translink, +96.67% Toronto TTC, +87.50% Montreal STM, +75.68% Chicago CTA, +66.67% USA Inflation, +54.09% Canada Inflation, +45.24% L.A. Metro, +29.63% 1998 2018 12 Mixed Signals 2018 Pass Multipliers Number of Cash Fares to Match Pass Cost Daily Vancouver Translink Montreal STM Chicago CTA L.A. Metro Boston MBTA Wash. D.C. Metro Monthly (where available) (where available) 5.4 32.2 3.1 Toronto TTC Houston Metro Weekly 8.1 3.9 26.2 13.5 45.0 2.4 3.3 11.0 4.0 35.0 14.3 4.4 57.1 7.7 6.6 30.7 26.7 13 Mixed Signals 2018 Network Design There is no perfect or universal structure for the public transit network. But there are commonalities among many cities, and lessons to be learned. Network mobility and resilience is a key factor in increased commuter mode share, and as we design our networks, we should be thinking about how to address unserved needs, how to create an adaptable travel grid, and how to benefit most from network effects. These are all essential characteristics of a strong transit network. Political decisions affecting the efficiency of the network have ripple effects which impact riders across the network, changing commuter mode share, non-peak ridership decisions, and system revenue. ◼ A strong transit network serves a diversity of destinations and a diversity of riders. There are many aspects to the development of a network with good connectivity. Simply put, the network must connect to places people want to go. All cities in the study have multiple-mode local transit, and all offer regional rail except Houston. Every agency examined has responsibility for some private vehicle parking lots, alongside the expected bus and rail services, while a few add on-call services, ferries, and even bike share. It is popular to contrast Toronto’s subway network with New York, Paris, Chicago, or Boston, but Toronto started building its rail network decades later. Toronto’s early investments have given Toronto a good foundation, but it is disingenuous to contrast these cities without noting that the New York City subway was essentially complete before Toronto even started. Toronto’s GO Train network provides wide Commonalities Differences • Strong ridership and mode share similar to other Canadian cities • Multi-decade history brings expansion goals into conflict with modern standards • Nearly all cities have regional commuter rail in addition to urban core service • 2nd-highest proportion of tunneled transit increases costs and construction time • Lower number of lines reduces coverage and network benefits • Choosing extensions over new lines means small issues create large interruptions regional coverage, and has built ridership exceeding most other cities, especially along its higher-capacity Lakeshore lines. Toronto’s local rail network is less complex, with less coverage than many cities. Downtown core streetcar lines improve the network greatly, but at low resilience due to mixed-traffic street design. When contrasted with every other city in the study, it is clear Toronto’s heavy reliance on two very long rail lines is unusual. More complexity allows for greater network connectivity and adaptability. The Eglinton Crosstown LRT line will strengthen Toronto’s network considerably. Toronto’s local transit has the highest ridership of all systems in the study. Unlike many other cities, the most common mode of transit is the bus, whose network connects well to the subway system. Indeed, Toronto’s subway is only busy because of busy feeder buses, given low density near most stations. It is notable that some of the busiest public transit routes are found in suburban areas of Toronto (such as along Finch Avenue). This demonstrates that it is possible to build strong transit ridership in areas with lower density that the city core. Toronto also has the highest rate of transit use, as a proportion of commuters, of all metro areas in the study. This success is driven by transit use in and into Toronto. Local transit use in cities outside Toronto remains quite low. While it has a much lower ridership that Toronto local transit, suburban use of regional rail is strong along the lakeshore. Good network infrastructure lays the foundation for strong ridership, but service frequency and reliability are more significant for building and retaining ridership in each corridor. 14 Mixed Signals 2018 Terminology Terms Description Heavy Rail (Subway, Metro) High-capacity electric railway operating in an exclusive right-of-way, often but not always tunneled or elevated. Example: the TTC subway is Heavy Rail, under North American terminology. Exclusive ROW Light/Intermediate Rail Intermediate-capacity electric railway operating in an exclusive right-of-way. Example: the TTC “Scarborough RT” is intermediate capacity, and once in operation the Eglinton Crosstown will be over 50% exclusive right-of-way. Semi-exclusive ROW Light Rail Intermediate-capacity electric railway operating in a mixture of rights-of-way, including tunneled, elevated, and at-grade. Example: the TTC 501 Queen streetcar at High Park operates in exclusive sections which are broken up by mixed-traffic intersections. Non-exclusive ROW (Streetcar, Tram) Intermediate-capacity electric railway operating in a mixed-traffic environment, subject to blockage by non-transit vehicles. Example: the TTC 504 King streetcar shares its lane with passenger cars for almost its entire route, despite being Toronto’s single busiest surface transit line. Regional Rail Higher-speed heavy rail operating in an exclusive right-of-way at greater distances, often connecting disparate cities. Example: Metrolinx GO Transit Unlinked Trips A single boarding of a single vehicle Example: bus> subway > bus = 3 unlinked trips Linked Trips A series of boardings required to complete a single continuous journey Example: bus > subway > bus = 1 linked trip 15 Mixed Signals 2018 Toronto Mode Length Stations/Stops 72.6 km (79.2 in late 2020’s) 70 (71 in late 2020’s) Exclusive ROW Light & Intermediate Rail 6.4 km (16.4 in ~2022) 6 (19 in ~2022) Semi-exclusive ROW Light Rail 23.2 km (43.2 in ~2022) 68 (98 in ~2022) Non-exclusive ROW (Streetcar, Tram) 83 km ~300 452 km 66 Heavy Rail (Subway, Metro) Regional Rail (non-TTC) Construction Note: Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) TTC Ridership (2017) Lines 5 & 6 scheduled to begin service in 2021-22. Line 3 to close in late 2020’s, as new subway extension with one stop opens, serving busiest Line 3 stop. TTC Heavy Rail: TTC Intermediate: TTC Streetcars: TTC Bus: GO Rail: Wheel-Trans: 877,300 37,800 287,800 1,406,800 204,200 13,800 856,953,100 (unlinked trips, APTA) 535,000,000 (linked rides, TTC) 16 Mixed Signals 2018 Boston Mode Heavy Rail (Subway, Metro) Exclusive ROW Light & Intermediate Rail Regional Rail Length Stations 68.1 km 62 37 km (43.9 in ~2022) 66 (73 in ~2022) 641 km 137 Construction Note: Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) Ridership (2017, APTA) Green Line light rail extension in progress Heavy Rail: Light Rail: Bus: Commuter Rail: ParaTransit: 321,000 204,000 233,100 123,100 6,400 387,629,600 (unlinked trips) 17 Mixed Signals 2018 Chicago Mode Length Stations Heavy Rail (Subway, Metro) 169 km 146 Regional Rail (non-CTA) 785 km 242 CTA Heavy Rail: CTA Bus: Metra Commuter Rail: PACE ParaTransit: 729,200 805,500 285,400 17,600 Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) CTA Ridership (2017, APTA) 479,435,200 (unlinked trips) Commuter Rail 18 Mixed Signals 2018 Houston Mode Semi-exclusive ROW Light Rail Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) Ridership (2017, APTA) Length Stations/Stops 36.5 km 39 Light Rail: Bus: ParaTransit: 61,100 222,800 6,400 88,799,300 (unlinked trips) 19 Mixed Signals 2018 Los Angeles Mode Length Stations/ Stops Heavy Rail (Subway, Metro) 31.6 km 22 Exclusive ROW Light & Intermediate Rail 31.3 km 14 Semi-exclusive ROW Light Rail 110.1 km (123.8 in ~2019) 68 (76 in ~2019) 859 km 61 Regional Rail (non-Metro) Construction Note: New Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail line on west side of city, scheduled to open in 2019. Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) Subway: Light Rail: Bus: Commuter Rail: ParaTransit: Metro Ridership (2017, APTA) 397,489,400 (unlinked trips) 138,500 219,900 896,400 37,800 10,800 20 Mixed Signals 2018 Montreal Mode Heavy Rail (Subway, Metro) Regional Rail (non-STM) Construction Note Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) Ridership (2017, APTA) Length Stations 69.2 km 68 256.4 km 62 Réseau express métropolitain (REM) light rail lines in the centre, north, and west of city, scheduled to begin service in 2021. Subway: Bus: Commuter Rail: ParaTransit: 1,298,400 917,000 84,900 13,900 643,087,600 (unlinked trips) Commuter Rail 21 Mixed Signals 2018 Vancouver Commuter Rail Mode Length Stations 79.6 km 53 Regional Rail 69 km 8 Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) SkyTrain: Bus: Ferry: Commuter Rail: 472,100 789,400 16,700 9,300 Exclusive ROW Light & Intermediate Rail Ridership (2017, APTA) 406,842,500 (unlinked trips) 22 Mixed Signals 2018 Washington, D.C. Commuter Rail (MARC & VRE) Mode Length Stations 189.7 km 94 Semi-exclusive ROW Light Rail 3.9 km 9 Regional Rail 446 km 61 Heavy Rail (Subway, Metro) Construction Note: Silver Line 18.5 km northwest expansion to Dulles airport, scheduled to begin service in 2020. Unlinked Trips Per Day (APTA 2017) Ridership (2017, APTA) Subway: Light Rail: Bus: Commuter Rail: ParaTransit: 760,200 3,700 374,600 (est) 77,000 (est) 8,000 346,342,000 (unlinked trips) 23 Mixed Signals 2018 Line Names, Colours, Lengths, and Stations Toronto (TTC) – 144 stns Boston (MBTA) – 128 Chicago (CTA) – 146 Houston METRORail – 39 Line 1 - 39.6 km Green - 36.4 km Blue - 44.5 km Red – 12.0 km Line 2 - 27.5 km Red – 33.0 km Red - 35.5 km Purple - 10.6 km Line 3 - 6.4 km Orange – 18.0 km Green - 32.5 km Green - 5.3 km Line 4 - 5.5 km Blue - 9.5 km Orange - 20.0 km Brown - 18.2 km The station count beside each city’s name includes all exclusive and semi-exclusive right-of-way (ROW) stations and stops, but excludes purely mixed-traffic stops. Los Angeles Metro – 104 Pink - 17.0 km Yellow - 8.0 km Purple - 6.4 km Montreal (STM) – 68 Vancouver (Translink) – 53 Washington, D.C. – 103 Gold - 50.1 km Orange – 30.0 km Expo – 35.0 km Red – 51.3 km Blue - 35.5 km Green - 22.1 km Millennium - 25.3 km Blue - 48.8 km Green - 31.3 km Blue - 9.7 km Canada - 19.5 km Silver - 47.6 km Expo - 24.5 km Yellow - 4.3 km Orange - 42.5 km Red - 23.6 km Green - 37.1 km Purple – 8.0 km Yellow - 24.3 km 24 Mixed Signals 2018 Urban Core Rail Network Growth London Boston Chicago Paris New York City Toronto Montreal Stations Built Per Ten-Year Period Washington, D.C. 101 (Paris 1900-1910) Vancouver 41 (New York City 1930-1940) 1 1850 1860 1870 Los Angeles (Toronto 1990-2000) 1880 1890 1900 1910 Houston 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 25 Mixed Signals 2018 Proportion of Urban Core Rail Underground km 200 46% 22% 11% 27% 11% 77% 100% 0% Washington, D.C. Los Angeles Chicago Boston Vancouver Toronto Montreal Houston 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Underground Aboveground 26 Mixed Signals 2018 Public Transit Commuter Mode Share Toronto CMA (Mississauga-Brampton-MarkhamVaughan-Richmond Hill-Oakville-Ajax) 24.3% Montreal CMA (Laval-Longueuil-TerrebonneSaint-Jean-sur-Richelieu-Brossard-… 22.3% Vancouver CMA (Surrey-Burnaby-Richmond-CoquitlamLangley-Delta-North Vancouver) 20.4% 14.4% Washington-Arlington-Alexandria 13.6% Boston-Cambridge-Newton 12.0% Chicago-Naperville-Elgin 5.1% Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Houston-The Woodlands-Sugarland 2.2% 27 Mixed Signals 2018 Millions Average Weekday Ridership by Transit Mode 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Toronto Bus Montreal Chicago Los Angeles Rail in Shared / Semi-Exclusive ROW Vancouver Washington, D.C. Rail in Exclusive ROW Boston Houston Commuter Rail 28 Mixed Signals 2018 Ridership per Kilometre of Rail Millions Ratio of annual local system ridership to exclusive right-of-way rail lines 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Toronto Montreal Los Angeles Vancouver Boston Chicago Houston Washington, D.C. 29 Mixed Signals 2018 Operating Budgets There is no perfect or universal structure for public transit agency funding. But there are lessons to be learned. Funding of public transit is part of cities’ democratic practice, and the choices we make on who must pay for what level of service or access are not neutral or obvious. Public transit is a public service, not a profit centre, thus every city (without a large money-generating property portfolio) must subsidize its transit. The level of subsidy and the security of the funds determine service and expansion decisions. Consensus is rarely possible in transit taxation decisions, but we should aim to strengthen planning and decision-making by dedicating transparent revenue streams to specific uses. ◼ Commonalities Differences • The cost of labour for all transit agencies pushes back against improved service • Advertising’s degradation to the brand far outweighs the small revenue it provides • Network expansion competes and wins funding over ongoing operational needs • Toronto has the highest farebox recovery ratio, lowest overall subsidy, lowest subsidy per rider, and lowest overall revenue per rider among the cities studied • Toronto has no predictable revenue stream from a dedicated tax or levy Transit systems are complex and dynamic systems, whose costs may fluctuate due to many factors. Changes in fuel costs and the ups and downs of ridership may affect the bottom line with little warning, leading to common mid-year service adjustments, just as in the private sector. The TTC relies on the farebox more than any other city in North America. In all comparator cities, the annual operating subsidy covers more than 50% of the operating budget. In Boston and Houston, it is more than 70%, and in Los Angeles it is nearly 90%. Toronto’s operating subsidy is just 30%. But transit’s largest expense is labour, and budget pressures here create a consistent annual incentive to reduce service, which can improve the bottom line but betray transit’s reason for existence. Even close to home, the difference is striking. The per-rider subsidy for the TTC is dramatically smaller than what is provided to riders in municipalities in the surrounding GTHA. Markham pays $4.56 per rider, fully five times Toronto’s $0.90. Suburban transit is normally far more costly per-rider, but this contrast is key to GTHA fare integration, especially amidst claims of cost neutrality. Establishing and planning operations at an appropriate level requires stable, predictable funding. Secure funding is also needed to maintain the system in a state-of-good-repair and to expand operations to improve service and increase ridership. Long-term capital planning also needs secure relationships with funding sources and governments. Toronto lags well behind other North American cities in this regard. The TTC’s operating budget is disproportionately small for its ridership. When compared with other cities, Toronto has the least to spend, per rider. Toronto has $2.10 per rider, less than half Vancouver’s level, even though the TTC carries more than twice the riders. US cities have even higher per-rider revenue, with Los Angeles topping out the list with $15.16 in revenue per rider, despite its far lower mode share. Toronto’s biggest differentiator is the lack of a designated revenue stream for transit. Almost every other city has a dedicated tax providing stable, predictable funding. In Montreal and Washington DC, participating regions/counties and cities contribute a subsidy calculated in relation to their population. In other cities with transit-dedicated taxes, these sources contribute a significant share of the transit agency’s revenue. In Houston, the sales tax contributes over 65% of Metro’s revenue. In Los Angeles, voters have approved transit-dedicated sales taxes in multiple elections. The status quo of low subsidy and unpredictable funding leaves Toronto’s riders at great risk. 30 Mixed Signals 2018 Toronto TTC (2017) Expenses Funding (30.4% subsidy) (All figures ‘000’s) 31 Mixed Signals 2018 Boston MBTA (2017) Funding (50.3% subsidy) Expenses (All figures ‘000’s) 32 Mixed Signals 2018 Chicago CTA (2017) Funding (55.0% subsidy) Expenses (All figures ‘000’s) 33 Mixed Signals 2018 Houston Metro (2016) Funding (75.9% subsidy) Expenses (All figures ‘000’s) 34 Mixed Signals 2018 Los Angeles Metro (2017) Funding (79.2% subsidy of operations spending) Expenses (mixed capital & operations) (All figures ‘000’s) Los Angeles Metro’s annual budget combines capital and operations, making direct comparisons difficult. 35 Mixed Signals 2018 Montreal STM (2016) Expenses Funding (51.1% subsidy) (All figures ‘000’s) 36 Mixed Signals 2018 Vancouver Translink (2017) Expenses Funding (60.2% subsidy) (All figures ‘000’s) 37 Mixed Signals 2018 Washington, D.C. WMATA (2018) Expenses Funding (52.5% subsidy) (All figures ‘000’s) 38 Mixed Signals 2018 Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating costs covered by passenger fares 46.0% Montreal (STM, 2016) 55.8% Vancouver (Translink, 2017) 69.6% Toronto (TTC, 2017) 41.5% Washington, D.C. (WMATA, 2016) 39.8% Chicago (CTA, 2016) TTC Operating Budget (2017) 33.3% Boston (MBTA, 2016) Other Revenue 30.4% 20.8% Los Angeles (LACMTA, 2016) Houston (MTAHC, 2016) Fares 69.6% 12.9% Farebox Recovery does not include capital costs (new construction, vehicles, buildings, signals, etc.) 41 39 Mixed Signals 2018 Annual Operating Subsidy Operating Budget per Trip Total subsidy from all sources 60.2% Montreal STM (2016) 30.4% 52.5% 50.3% 79.2% 75.9% $4.78 Vancouver Translink (2017) 51.1% 55.0% Per-unlinked-trip representation of total budget from all sources Toronto TTC (2017) Chicago CTA (2017) Washington D.C. Metro (2018) Boston MBTA (2017) Los Angeles Metro (2017) Houston Metro (2016) $2.12 $2.10 Example: TTC (2017), rounded figures $1.8b budget 857m trips $2.10 per trip $3.18 $5.38 $6.81 $8.84 $11.77 40 Mixed Signals 2018 Subsidy per Transit Rider Per-rider representation of the total subsidy from all sources $4.75 USA (2016, US$) TTC (2017$) Canada (2015$) GTHA (2015$) $4.56 $4.12 $3.74 Example: TTC (2017), rounded figures $495,000,000 total subsidies $3.37 553,000,000 rides $0.90 subsidy per ride $3.08 $2.73 $2.37 $2.29 $2.30 $1.96 $1.90 $1.86 $1.90 $1.75 $1.69 $1.16 $0.90 41 Mixed Signals 2018 Dedicated Revenue Sources and Recent Recommendations Sales Tax Gas and Fuel Taxes Parking Tax Dev Charges Tolls Paid Parking Vehicle Tax Land Transfer Tax Toronto  ◼    ◼   Boston ◼     ◼   Chicago ◼     ◼  ◼ Houston ◼     ◼   Los Angeles ◼     ◼   Montreal      ◼   Vancouver   ◼  ◼ ◼   Washington, D.C.  ◼    ◼   Metrolinx Investment Strategy (2013) ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ Toronto Region Board of Trade (2013) ◼ ◼ ◼  ◼ Transit Investment Strategy Advisory Panel (2014) ◼ ◼    + Corporate Income Tax City of Toronto Staff Report (2012) ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ + Vehicle Registration Tax Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (2013) ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼  Ontario Chamber of Commerce (2013) ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ Dedicated revenue sources: Recommended by: ◼ Dedicated ◼ Partial  None + Land Value Capture 42 Mixed Signals 2018 Governance There is no perfect or universal structure for regional transportation governance. But there are lessons to be learned. Governance of public infrastructure is part of cities’ democratic practice, and as we design our structures, we should be thinking about how to spend effectively, be transparent in decision-making, represent the diversity of stakeholders affected, and create space for long-term planning supported by sustainable funding. These are all essential characteristics of a strong governance model. It is not possible to avoid politicizing transit decisions, but we should aim to strengthen decision-making processes to favour evidence and expertise for collective public benefit, not partisan electoral politics. ◼ Our report found that Toronto’s governance structure differs from other North American cities in key ways: Toronto’s principal transportation provider, the TTC, has limited oversight of transportation within the city. It has no control of the road network it uses, nor oversight of other forms of transportation. It thus has limited opportunity for prioritizing transit within roadspace or for the coordination of transit with cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Commonalities Differences • No rider or Wheel-Trans rider representation on the Board • Regional population skews provincial government focus and funding toward regional commuters not in City of Toronto property tax base • No city has privatized local or regional transit agencies • Metrolinx board has no elected representatives at all, nor any who are accountable to the City of Toronto. • PRESTO fare card controlled only by Province of Ontario • TTC Board public control only indirect, and diversity unlegislated does not requiring legislative confirmation, and its membership cannot include any elected representatives (since 2009 reorganization). No other comparator city has a board fully appointed by the government with no open screening or approval process. More significantly, the City of Toronto has no representation on the Metrolinx Board whatsoever. The TTC is currently phasing out the use of its own tickets, tokens, and passes, with completion expected by mid-2019, and provincial agency Metrolinx’s PRESTO fare card will become the sole non-cash fare media option. No other comparator city has a fare card fully controlled by another level of government with no local oversight. The TTC’s Board of Commissioners is also somewhat unusual for having City Councillors as a strong majority of its members (one as Chair), and a limited role for civilian members. Civilian members are required to hold “executive-level” and “management” experience, but not necessarily any transit knowledge or experience. Council approves the membership of the Board, but its Councillor members are chosen by the mayor. The Metrolinx Board of Directors is appointed by the Premier through an Order-in-Council, which Other comparator city Boards seek some representation of diverse stakeholders and/or members with expertise and experience related to transit and transportation. Only one city includes both rider and ParaTransit representation by law. Appointments of elected representatives are included as one way of representing the different geographic stakeholders in a region. In the US, appointments are often subject to counterchecking, where the city’s choices must be approved by the state, and vice versa. In only one city, Boston, does the province or state have majority control over the network. Both Boards overseeing transit in Toronto are significantly politicized and vulnerable to partisan interference, to a degree not seen in other cities. When combined with inadequate and insecure funding, the vulnerability of the TTC is particularly acute. 43 Mixed Signals 2018 Toronto City of Toronto 2 Elected City Council members, 5 citizen members Greater Toronto Area’s 25 cities & towns Metrolinx 14 unelected citizen members appointed by provincial cabinet 7 Elected City Council members, 4 citizen members appointed by City Council WheelTrans, Bus, Streetcar, Subway Future LRT GO Transit, UP Express PRESTO fare card Modes Parking Bike Share Toronto Transit Commission Boards Toronto Parking Authority Board Province of Ontario Jurisdictions Greater Toronto & Hamilton Area (GTHA) Population Density (5 additional in GTHA) Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode 44 Mixed Signals 2018 Boston Commonwealth of Massachusetts Massachusetts Population Density MBTA Fiscal and Mgmt Control Board 5 members appointed by Governor of MA MBTA Advisory Board 175 members appointed by chief elected official of each city and town in the district Boards MassDOT Board of Directors 11 citizen members appointed by Governor of MA Jurisdictions City of Boston Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Greater Boston’s 175 cities & towns CharlieCard Fare Card Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode Modes Bike Share Parking, ParaTransit, Bus, Ferry, Subway, Commuter Rail 45 Mixed Signals 2018 Chicago Mayor of Chicago Cook County Board Cook County Board President “Collar Counties” Board Chairs Regional Transportation Authority Board 16 members total, 5 appointed by the Mayor of Chicago, 4 by the Cook County Board, 1 by the Cook County Board President, 5 by the “Collar Counties” Board Chairs (1 each), and 1 elected by a super-majority of Board members Illinois Divvy Bike Share ParaTransit, Suburban Bus, Vanpool Parking, Bus, Elevated Trains, Ventra Fare Card Modes Greater Chicago’s 126 cities & towns Chicago Transit Authority Board of Directors 7 members total, 4 appointed by Mayor of Chicago, and 3 by the Governor of Illinois Metra Board of Directors 11 members total, 1 appointed by Mayor of Chicago, 4 by the Cook County Board, 1 by the Cook County Board President, and 5 by the Collar Counties Board Chairs (1 each) Boards City of Chicago Population Density Pace Board of Directors 13 members total, 12 appointed by Collar Counties Board Chairs and the Suburban members of the Cook County Board (1 each), and 1 by the Mayor of Chicago. Chair appointed by majority vote of all except the Mayor Jurisdictions Governor of Illinois Commuter Rail Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode 46 Mixed Signals 2018 Houston Harris County Population Density Harris County Commissioners Court 14 Multi-Cities in METRO’s Service Area 9 members total, 5 appointed by City of Houston, 2 by Harris County Commissioners Court, and 2 by the 14 Multi-Cities in METRO Service Area Boards Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Jurisdictions City of Houston Harris County’s 23 cities & towns Texas Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode Modes Parking, ParaTransit, Bus, Light Rail, Q Fare Card 47 Mixed Signals 2018 Ventura County San Bernardino County Riverside County Orange County Mayor of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Southern California Regional Rail Authority Board 11 members total, 4 appointed by Southern California Regional Rail Authority, 2 by Orange County, 2 by Riverside County, 2 by San Bernadino County, and 1 by Ventura County Bike Share, Bike Paths, Carpool Lanes, Freeway Car Service, Parking, Bus, Light Rail, Subway, TAP Fare Card Commuter Rail Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode Modes Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board 14 members total, 5 LA County Supervisors, the Mayor of LA and 3 appointees, and 4 council members of LA County member cities other than LA itself, and the 14th non-voting member by the Governor of California Boards Los Angeles County Population Density Los Angeles County’s 87 Member Cities Jurisdictions Los Angeles County’s 127 cities & towns Governor of California Los Angeles 48 Mixed Signals 2018 South Shore North Shore Ville de Laval Réseau de transport métropolitain Board of Directors 15 members total, 4 appointed by Greater Montreal’s council (including one rider and one ParaTransit representative), 2 by the Island of Montreal regional council, 1 by Longueuil council, 1 by Laval council, and the 8 mayors of cities on the North (4) and South (4) shores Taxibus, ParaTransit, Parking, Bus, Subway, OPUS Fare Card Commuter Rail Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode Modes Société de transport de Montréal Board of Directors 7-10 members appointed by the City of Montréal from its council and the councils of the urban agglomeration (up to 7 members), 1 ParaTransit representative, and 2 rider representatives, 1 of whom must be under age 35. Boards Greater Montreal Population Density Agglomération de Longueuil Montréal Agglomeration Council Jurisdictions Island of Montreal’s 15 Municipalities Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal Montreal 49 Mixed Signals 2018 Vancouver Board of Trade Chartered Accountants of BC Greater Vancouver Gateway Council Screening Panel 5 members appointed by the five organizations above Greater Vancouver’s 21 Municipalities, Electoral Area, and the Tsawwassen First Nation (above), and Population Density (left) Boards BC Minister of Transportation Mayors’ Council 21 mayors of Metro Vancouver municipalities and the Chief of Tsawwassen First Nation Jurisdictions City of Vancouver Vancouver South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“Translink”) Board of Directors 11 members appointed by the Mayors’ Council from shortlist prepared by the Screening Panel Parking, ParaTransit, Ferry, Bus, SkyTrain, Commuter Rail, Compass Fare Card Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode Modes Bike Share 50 Mixed Signals 2018 United States Secretary of Transportation Washington Suburban Transit Commission (Maryland) Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (Virginia) Bike Share Parking, ParaTransit, Bus, Subway, SmarTrip Fare Card Modes Capital Bikeshare Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board of Directors 16 members (8 voting, 8 alternate) total, with 4 appointed by Council of the District of Columbia, 4 by Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, 4 by Washington Suburban Transit Commission, and 4 by United States Secretary of Transportation Boards Population Density in the District of Columbia and its neighbor states of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia Council of the District of Columbia Jurisdictions Arlington County VA Alexandria VA Fairfax County VA Montgomery County MD Washington, D.C. Colour indicates majority control of transportation mode 51 Mixed Signals 2018 Local Agency Boards of Directors Membership & Control Percentage of Local Agency Board from Local Core City Local Agency Board Members Representing… Region Province Federal City /County /State Govt. Privatized Agency at any level? Rider representative on the Board? ParaTransit representative on the Board? Unelected Board members paid? Toronto 100% ◼       ◼ Boston 0%   ◼      Chicago 31% ◼ ◼ ◼     ◼ Houston 56% ◼ ◼       Los Angeles 31% ◼ ◼      ◼ Montreal 100% ◼ ◼    ◼ ◼ ◼ Vancouver 5% ◼       ◼ Washington, D.C. 25% ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼  ◼   52 Mixed Signals 2018 Boards of Directors and Equity Black, Indigenous, & People of Colour Gender 7 7 Montreal STM 5 Vancouver Translink 5 Men 6 Boston MBTA 8 Toronto TTC 9 13 10 3 10 2 2 2 11 1 11 17 BIPOC Chicago CTA Los Angeles Metro 4 9 6 Washington, D.C. WMATA 5 10 6 9 Houston Metro 2 10 4 8 Montreal RTM Washington, D.C. WMATA 5 Chicago CTA 4 7 Increased Balance Women Los Angeles Metro 5 6 Houston Metro 3 White Toronto Metrolinx 3 1 Toronto TTC Toronto Metrolinx Boston MBTA 0 Montreal STM 0 Vancouver Translink 0 Montreal RTM 53 Mixed Signals 2018 Fares Download this report with clickable links at www.CodeRedTO.com City/Region Source(s) Toronto TTC www.TTC.ca GO Transit www.gotransit.com Provincial Inflation http://inflationcalculator.ca/ontario/ Fare History https://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0021.shtml Boston MBTA www.MBTA.com Local Inflation https://www.bls.gov/regions/new-england/data/consumerpriceindex_boston_table.htm Fare History http://beta.metrobostondatacommon.org/site_media/uploads/DataDay2012_Pollack-The_State_of_MBTA_Finances.pdf Chicago CTA www.transitChicago.com Metra www.metrarail.com Local Inflation https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_chicago_table.pdf Fare History https://www.chicagorailfan.com/fares.html Houston Metro www.rideMetro.org Local Inflation https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_houston1967_table.pdf Fare History https://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFiles/Capmetroorg/Plans_and_Progress/Fare_Change/farestudy%20final%20draft.pdf Los Angeles Metro www.metro.net Metrolink www.metrolinktrains.com Local Inflation https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/data/consumerpriceindex_losangeles_table.pdf Fare History https://socata.net/newsletter/transit-avocate-1992-1999/ http://humantransit.org/2010/03/los-angeles-times-columnist-slams-transferpenalties.html https://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-fare-changes-be-implemented-september-15-off/ Montreal STM www.stm.info Exo (formerly AMT/RTM) https://rtm.quebec Provincial Inflation http://inflationcalculator.ca/quebec/ Fare History http://www.stm.info/en/about/financial_and_corporate_information/budget-and-reports/budgets-stm Vancouver Translink www.translink.ca Provincial Inflation http://inflationcalculator.ca/british-columbia/ Fare History https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer%20Vault/1990s/1997/Buzzer_1997_09_19.pdf http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-080723-Fare-Evasion-pwc.pdf https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/13/translink-fare-increase_n_2126829.html http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-fares-increase-july-1-2018 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transit-fares-hit-5-in-metrovancouver-1.726003 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2007/bc_transit_btn.pdf Washington, D.C. WMATA www.wmata.com MARC https://mta.maryland.gov/marc-train VRE https://www.vre.org/ Local Inflation https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/dc_washington_md.htm Fare History https://www.wmata.com/about/records/public_docs/upload/History-of-Fare-Increases-FY2015.pdf Canada Inflation Calculator: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/ US Inflation Calculator: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ Farebox Recovery Ratio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://cms.fta.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd/66026/top-50-summary-and-complete-profile-set_1.pdf 54 Mixed Signals 2018 Networks Download this report with clickable links at www.CodeRedTO.com City/Region Source(s) Toronto TTC www.TTC.ca GO Transit www.gotransit.com Maps: Streetcar/Subway https://www.ttc.ca/Routes/General_Information/Maps/index.jsp GO Transit https://www.gotransit.com/en/trip-planning/systemand-route-map Operating Statistics https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/2016/section_one.jsp Corporate Plan 2018-2022 http://ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2018/January_25/Reports/1_Corporate_Plan_2018-2022.pdf Boston MBTA www.MBTA.com Maps: Subway https://www.mbta.com/schedules/subway Rail https://www.mbta.com/schedules/commuter-rail Expansion https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/12/20/mbta-changes Chicago CTA www.transitChicago.com Metra www.metrarail.com Maps: L Metra Houston Metro www.rideMetro.org Map: https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/SchedulesBusRail.aspx Los Angeles Metro www.metro.net Metrolink www.metrolinktrains.com Map: https://www.metro.net/riding/maps/ Expansion https://www.metro.net/projects/crenshaw_corridor/ Montreal STM www.stm.info Exo (formerly AMT/RTM) https://rtm.quebec Maps: STM exo Vancouver Translink www.translink.ca Maps: SkyTrain https://www.translink.ca/Schedules-and-Maps/Transit-System-Maps.aspx West Coast Express https://www.translink.ca/Schedules-andMaps/West-Coast-Express/WCE-Station-Maps.aspx Washington, D.C. WMATA www.wmata.com MARC https://mta.maryland.gov/marc-train VRE https://www.vre.org/ MetroAccess https://www.wmata.com/service/accessibility/metro-access/ Additional network details: UrbanRail.net Ridership: American Public Transportation Association Q4 2017 Ridership Report Mode Share: Streetsblog, Statistics Canada 55 Mixed Signals 2018 Budgets Download this report with clickable links at www.CodeRedTO.com City/Region Source(s) Toronto TTC www.ttc.ca 2017-2018 TTC & Wheel-Trans Operating Budgets https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Committee_meetings/Budget/2017/November_17/Reports/1_2018_TTC_and_ Wheel-Trans_Operating_Budgets.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-100738.pdf Boston MBTA www.mbta.com 2017 Fiscal Year Audited Financial Statements https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/2017-12/fy17-audited-financial-statements.pdf Chicago CTA www.transitchicago.com 2017 Fiscal Year Budget Book http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/finance_budget/FY17_Budget_Book_FINAL.pdf Houston Metro www.ridemetro.org Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2016 https://www.ridemetro.org/MetroPDFs/FinancialAuditInformation/2017/FY2016-CAFR.pdf Los Angeles Metro www.metro.net 2018 Fiscal Year Proposed Budget https://media.metro.net/about_us/finance/images/fy18_proposed_budget_2017-05.pdf Montreal STM http://stm.info 2016 Annual Report http://www.stm.info/sites/default/files/affairespubliques/Communiques/stm_rapport_annuel_2016_final.pdf Vancouver Translink www.translink.ca 2017 Business Plan and Operating and Capital Budget https://www.translink.ca//media/Documents/about_translink/corporate_overview/corporate_reports/business_plan/2017_business_plan_and_operating_and_capital_budget.pdf Washington, D.C. WMATA www.wmata.com 2018 Approved Budget https://www.wmata.com/about/records/public_docs/upload/Approved-Budget-Final_v1.pdf Sankey Flow Diagrams: www.sankeymatic.com Subsidy per Rider: 2017 TTC and Wheel-Trans Operating Budgets, Watchdog.org Revenue Sources: file:///C:/Users/cameron.macleod/Downloads/Dedicated%20Revenue%20Sources%20for%20Major%20Transit%20Agencies.pdf Revenue Recommendations: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-67455.pdf http://www.occ.ca/Publications/The-2Billion-Question_online.pdf https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Ontario%20Office/2013/05/Torontos_2andHalf_Billion_Dollar_Question.pdf http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/funding/investment_strategy.aspx 56 Mixed Signals 2018 Governance Download this report with clickable links at www.CodeRedTO.com City/Region Source(s) Toronto TTC Board https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/index.jsp Metrolinx http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/board/board_of_directors_bios.aspx Ontario Ministry of Transportation https://www.ontario.ca/page/ministry-transportation Region https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_toronto_area_map.svg Density https://censusmapper.ca/maps/591#10/43.5789/-79.4888 Boston Chicago Houston Los Angeles MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) https://www.mbta.com/leadership/fmcb MBTA Advisory Board http://www.mbtaadvisoryboard.org Massachussetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-department-of-transportation Region http://www.mbtaadvisoryboard.org/about-us/ Density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Massachusetts Map Attributions Canadian density maps – © CensusMapper, Data provided by Statistics Canada Density Maps for California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia – © JimIrwin / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL Density Maps for Houston TX and Los Angeles County CA – Public Domain / Government Agency Publication Density Map for Chicago – © David B. Gleason / CC-BY-SA-2.0 Chicago Transit Board https://www.transitchicago.com/board/ Metra Rail Board of Directors https://metrarail.com/about-metra/leadership Region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_County,_Illinois Density https://www.flickr.com/photos/mindfrieze/4037618743 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago Region Maps for Greater Boston Area, Harris County TX, Los Angeles County CA, Montreal, and Texas – Public Domain Metro Board https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/BoardOfDirectors.aspx Region https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Texas_highlighting_Harris_County.svg https://www.houstontx.gov/controller/investorrelations/2017invconf/metro.pdf Density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Houstonpopulationdensity.PNG Region Map for Cook and DuPage Counties IL – © DemocraticLuntz at English Wikipedia Metro Board https://www.metro.net/about/board/ Metrolink Board https://www.metrolinktrains.com/about/agency/board-of-directors/ Region https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LA_districts_map.svg Density https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LACountyPopDensity.png Region Map for Vancouver – © TastyCakes on English Wikipedia Region Map for Greater Toronto Area – © mortadelo2005 / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL Region Map for Los Angeles neighbourhood groupings – © Peter Fitzgerald / CC-BY-SA-2.0 Region Map for Washington, D.C. – © Patrickneil / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL Montreal Société de transport de Montréal Board of Directors (English link) http://www.stm.info/en/about/corporate-governance/board-directors Exo Governance (French link) https://rtm.quebec/fr/a-propos/gouvernance Region https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A9al Density https://censusmapper.ca/maps/591#11/45.5470/-73.6019 Vancouver Translink Governance https://www.translink.ca/About-Us/Governance-and-Board.aspx Region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver Density https://censusmapper.ca/maps/591#11/49.2756/-123.1155 Washington, D.C. WMATA Board of Directors https://www.wmata.com/about/board/ MARC https://mta.maryland.gov/about-mta VRE https://www.vre.org/about/board/ Region https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Washington,_D.C._locator_map.svg Density https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_population_map.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maryland_population_map.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_Virginia_population_map.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Delaware_population_map.png 57 Mixed Signals 2018 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon our work non-commercially, as long as they credit CodeRedTO and license their new creations under the identical terms. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. Download this report at www.CodeRedTO.com © 2018 CodeRedTO