inp911essay

Running Head: TTC Riders: Fighting for Toronto Transit 1

TTC Riders: Fighting for Toronto Transit

ByBailey, Lindsay Ann 500331359

Bui Thai, Thien Huong 500337848Marianayagam, Sarojini 500267264

Posavec, Jana 500393021

SubmittedTo

Professor Alex GillDepartment of Politics and Administrationin partial fulfillment for the requirements

forINP 911: Advocacy and Government Relations

April 10, 2013Ryerson University


IntroductionThe purpose of this report is to advocate for the rights of transit riders who regularly use

the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) but have been left out of the decision making process. In 2006 to 2011, ridership on the TTC increased by 12.5% or 56 million more trips yet service only increased by 8.4%. Today the TTC is providing less service than it did in 2006 to a growing population of riders (TTC Riders, 2012). We have compiled several recommendations to improve the quality and effectiveness of public transit for the residents of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Our research indicates that investing in public transit benefits the environment, allows accessibility for the people with disabilities, decreases congestion and improves personal health. We offer recommendations to improve the Toronto Transit Commission and maximize these existing benefits. These benefits are not only individual, but shared throughout the whole of society. Furthermore, we analyze the ways in which the TTC is a more cost-effective investment for transit riders and for the city of Toronto. Lastly, we provide recommendations for funding and promote the use of subsidies and taxes to make the price of transit better reflect its social cost. By taking into account our informed recommendations, we are advising the TTC and Government of Canada to make the appropriate changes. These changes will not only benefit TTC transit riders but, it will improve society as a whole for all Torontonians and all members of the GTA. The TTC and the Environment

Public transit promotes environmental sustainability in the city of Toronto. This section will analyze the costs congestion places on the environment and transit energy efficiency. Using research compiled from the Metrolinx (2008), Transit Commission (2012) Transport Canada (2009), Toronto Environmental Alliance and TTC riders (2010), TTC Riders (2012), Urban Transportation Task Force (2012) we assess congestion as an environmental cost and recommend ways to reduce congestion for environmental purposes. Furthermore, we assess the TTC as an environmental and sustainable mode of transportation. We recommend that the TTC continue to use fuel efficient resources and that the government continue to support funding for the TTC based on its environmental benefits.

Traffic congestion is a creating a growing environmental problem in Canada, especially in larger urbanized cities. Congestion decreases quality of life by producing greenhouse gases and other environmentally and physically harmful pollutants. Metrolinx (2008), a provincial transit agency in Ontario, found that congestion wastes fuel and increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Increased use of the TTC decreases congestion and lowers overall emissions. Despite the fact that the TTC vehicles generate emissions, they avoid potentially higher emissions by deterring individuals from using private vehicles. The TTC serves more than 450 million passenger rides each year. Each work day, an average of 1.5 million people use transit services, resulting in fewer cars being used on the road. Fewer vehicles on the road means fewer greenhouse gas emissions (Toronto Transit Commission, 2012). Even though the TTC does not officially report its current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a report conducted by TTC riders


and Toronto Environmental Alliance (2010) states that Torontonians avoided emitting roughly 357,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by using the TTC instead of private vehicles. This report is based on the fact that in 2009, the TTC moved roughly 471 million passengers about 214 million km and reduced annual car trips by roughly 261 million. If the TTC were to shut down, riders would be taking another 261 million annual car trips that would burn roughly 140 million litres of gasoline, while increasing traffic on roads by as much as 60 per cent (TEA & TTC riders, 2010). With an increase in funding for public transit congestion, the TTC has reduced pollution with clean fuel buses. The TTC switched to diesel buses with ultra-low sulfur fuel, which produces 90 percent less sulfur than traditional fuel and reduces emissions. Although the TTC has helped to improve the environment in Toronto and the GTA, there are still improvements to be made. Improving Transit Energy Efficiency

The TTC can improve the quality of the environment by selecting energy efficient vehicles. In 2007, the TTC operated 150 diesel/electric hybrid buses with 410 more to be added to the fleet in 2008, resulting in one third of the fleet being hybrids. By 2010, 45% of the fleet will be hybrids. A sustainable transportation case study done by Urban Transportation Showcase Program reported that one advantages of Hybrid were that they reduced emissions and reduced fuel consumption up to 40%. In addition, TTC uses a bio-diesel fuel in all of its buses which is 95% ultra-low sulphur diesel and 5% vegetable oil. This is a cleaner burning diesel fuel which is made from natural sources such as vegetable oils and animal fats. It acts as a substitute, eliminating the need for petroleum diesel. Biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine substantially decreases unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. (Dzurik, Leszczynska & Brenner, 2002). Operator training and operating procedures contribute to fuel efficiency as well. These principles apply to buses, streetcars, trains and non-revenue vehicles (Toronto Transit Commission, 2012). Hybrid buses and fuel efficient resources are a costly investment. Hybrid buses are 50% to 70 % more expensive than diesel buses (Transport Canada 2009). The social benefits of providing environmentally friendly transit outweigh any subsidy costs (Litman, 2011). Continuing to invest in these initiatives is necessary to maximize the TTC’s positive impact on Toronto’s environment. Decreasing congestion through public transit makes the city more environmentally sustainable, but it is also vital to sustaining a growing city.

.The TTC and Urban Planning

Growing cities such as Toronto face problematic issues such as urban sprawl, congestion and inadequate resources to provide basic mobility services to their residents. Investing in public transit is a viable solution to these problems (Litman, 2011). Public transit has also been described as a key tool to achieving productive and accessible cities (Suzuki, Cevereo & Iuchi, 2013). The research of Barber (1995), Harford (2006), IBM (2011), Lewyn (2012), Litman (2011), Metrolinx (2008), and Money Sense (2012) supports the claim that public transit creates a more functional city. We apply their research to Toronto and discuss the city’s continuing


urban sprawl, congestion and inadequate mobility problems and how they can be rectified. Congestion in this section of paper will be addressed in an economical approach rather than an environmental perspective. Based on the economic costs of congestion we stress the need to invest in a well-planned and efficient public transit.

Over the last few decades urban sprawl and stagnating public transit in Toronto has led to increased congestion. Urban sprawl is the shift of individuals from the inner city to the suburbs, where automobiles are the main source of transportation. (Lewyn, 2012). The Province of Ontario has invested extensively in highways, making it easier for individuals in suburbs to commute downtown. (Lewyn, 2012). This encouraged development outside of the city and heightened the growth of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl destroys wildlife habitats and contributes to congestion as outer-city commuters rely on automobiles (Lewyn, 2012). Congestion creates significant environmental, economic and health issues (Barber, 1995). Traffic congestion reduces economic output, leads to job loss, lost time due to travel delays, increased stress, traffic accidents and vehicle operating costs (IBM, 2011; Litman, 2011; Metrolinx, 2008). Time is money, and Torontonians spend 40 days a year driving (TRBT, 2013). Congestion affects businesses’ and manufacturers’ ability to meet deadlines and attend meetings (TRBT, 2013). In 2010 the Organization for Co-operation and Development said that ineffective transport infrastructure was “a direct hit on productivity” (TRBT, 2013). Based on the economic costs of congestion to the city of Toronto, public transit should be planned effectively to alleviate congestion.

Improving Public Transit to Reduce Congestion

One of the most effective to reduce congestion is by investing in public transit. All levels of government in Canada have to make significant investments in transportation infrastructure, specifically in urban transit (Urban Transportation Task Force, 2012). Several studies have shown that there is a strong correlation between affordable, accessible public transit and the reduction of congestion (Hardford, 2006; IBM, 2011; Litman, 2011). Countries with sizable public transportation in Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Madrid, Bejing, Shenzen, Nairobi, London, Madrid, Paris, New York City and Singapore possess a higher number of individuals who take public transit to work rather than private transit (IBM, 2011). It is estimated that public transit saved 85 urban areas 20 billion dollars in congestion costs (Hardford, 2006). Transit reduces the number of cars on the road which in turn reduces congestion, parking congestions, accidents and stops some of the effects of urban sprawl (Litman 2011; Lewyn 2012). In order for the TTC to become an effective tool for change in the city transit has to be fast comfortable, convenient and affordable. When public transportation is an attractive alternative, more individuals will choose public transportation and congestion will be reduced.

In order to make the transit, faster, comfortable and affordable we recommend the TTC implement more rush hour service, regional integration of public transit in the GTA and the continuing cooperation from the Canadian government on existing plans. Public transit must attract riders from the suburbs away from their cars. A poorly funded and badly planned public


transit system will not attract riders and decrease congestion (Litman, 2011). If transit is faster and more convenient than driving discretionary drivers (those who have a choice between cars and public transit) will switch to public transit. In order to make public transportation faster and more comfortable service has to be increased during peak hours (Litman, 2011). In Quebec City, the Métrobus is a system of high-frequency buses of greater capacity that operate primarily on designated bus lanes and have priority at traffic lights. The Métrobus 802 added in August 2008 has triggered a 23% increase in ridership compared to the former route (Urban Transportation Task Force, 2012). Increased rush hour service is not sufficient- service needs to be expanded to suburbs like Mississauga, where existing systems are limited or non-existent (Lewyn, 2012). York Region’s new bus service “Viva” provides priority for transit vehicles along the congested Highway 7 corridor and has been successful at attracting new ridership in a suburban setting (Urban Transportation Task Force, 2012). Toronto needs further regional transit integration to increase access to transit in the suburbs (Money Sense, 2012). Suburbanites would take public transit to work if they could get a smooth ride with minimal transfers (Money Sense, 2012). Transit authorities from Toronto and its outer suburbs (Viva Transit, Mississauga Transit, Brampton Transit, GO etc.) need to be more cohesive and cooperative. Better planned routes will make public transit a preferable alternative to driving for suburban travelers and reduce the effects of congestion (Metrolinx, 2008). Currently efforts are underway by Metrolinx to create a more cohesive transit system between existing suburban transit and create more new transit lines within Toronto. There needs to be a continued commitment from all levels of government to invest in regionally integrated transit to reduce the economic costs of congestion. The economic and social costs of ignoring public transit fall most heavily on those already marginalized in society. The TTC Accessibility and Equality

Public transit provides mobility for groups who cannot access or operate private transit.

Research from “Getting around Toronto: Transportation” (2013), OCHR (2008), Stricken et al.needs to be full name (2011), “The State of Public Transit” (2013), and the Toronto Transit Commission, (2013), we outline how the TTC improves equality and accessibility in Toronto and potential improvements to make the TTC more accessible and equal.

Public transit provides basic mobility for those who cannot afford or operate automobiles. This includes lower-income families, disabled people, seniors, and youth. Many individuals rely on transit services for basic mobility such as access to medical services, shopping, education, employment opportunities (Litman 2011). The effects of not being able to use public transit can result in boredom, exclusion, lack of independence and other frustrations (“Getting Around Toronto: Transportation”, 2013). While some of these groups benefit from the mere existence of public transit, for those with disabilities transit must also be made accessible. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has guaranteed accessibility to transit for users with all types of disabilities. People with disabilities have the right to access transit services with equal dignity and lack of impediment. Accessibility for disabled people can come in many forms,


such as providing ramps on busses, visual signs for the hearing impaired or providing other services for people with old age disabilities. Having a fully accessible transit system means that the TTC needs two things: to give disabled people full access to the overall transit system, and include vehicles dedicated for mobility challenged users. In the last few years the TTC has taken large steps in improving accessibility in the transit sector.

The TTC has continued to improve full access to the overall transit system. By 2010, 97% of busses were accessible and the proposed LRT system is also fully accessible (“The State of Public Transit in Toronto, 2013). Subway stations are the least accessible with only 30 out of the 69 subway stations fully accessible and promises to make all subway stations accessible delayed to 2025 (“The State of Public Transit in Toronto, 2013). In 2011, the TTC began using the new Rocket Subway Cars, which helped to improve transit accessibility.(Toronto Transit Commission, 2013). The subway doors are much larger and are widened, specifically for passengers with walkers, strollers, seeing guides and other aids. The interior of the cars provides more space to accommodate wheelchair(Toronto Transit Commission, 2013). TTC busses have been remodeled to become more accessible. Ramps have been added to every bus and the maintenance is checked at the end of each day. The new TTC streetcars have a low-level floor, easily accessible for people with many disabilities (Toronto Transit Commission, 2013). Newly remodeled curbs will help passengers in wheelchairs access the streetcar and ground floor when entering and/or exiting and streetcar stations are to have ramps to accommodate these passengers. In the Case of Lepofsky v. Toronto Transit Commission, the court found the TTC failed to announce all stops on its busses and streetcars, which it violated the rights of persons with disabilities (OCHR, 2008). In 2007 the Ontario Commission of Human Rights began to require that transit providers announce stops (OCHR, 2008).

Wheel-Trans provides an dedicated and accessible mobility service for Torontonians with disabilities. A partner transit service provider with the TTC, Wheel-Trans, “provides door-to-door accessible transit service for persons with physical disabilities using accessible buses, contracted accessible and sedan taxis” (Toronto Transit Commission, 2013). In 2012, Wheel-Trans provided its services for 46,800 registrants who have restricted mobility. This number increased 17% from 20122 and ridership in 2012 reached about 2.9 million trips via Wheel-Trans. An additional 201 low-floor busses were developed to further provide better quality of service. Wheel-Trans has made steps in improving its customer service and in 2012, Wheel-Trans allowed riders to book a week in advanced (Toronto Transit Commission, 2013). Wheel-Trans is now available 24 hours a day and is focusing on reducing wait times for customers using the Call Ahead service. Some services are expected to fully be implemented starting in fall of 2013 (Toronto Transit Commission, 2013). By improving accessibility of the current conventional services, Wheel-Trans predicts that registrants will make more use out of the TTC and will benefit from more flexible travel options. New initiatives implemented by the TTC will help registrants integrate with public service and reduce wait times for door-to-door trips made by Wheel-Trans. By improving TTC accessibility will help promote a larger percentage of people with disabilities to use public transit (Toronto Transit Commission, 2013). This increase in conventional accessible services will help improve the efficiency of Wheel-Trans by better


integrating it with conventional transit services. Furthermore, it will be a cost-saving initiative for registrants since door-to-door trips are expensive. The TTC is becoming more accessible each year but improvements are still needed to accommodate disabled users Improving the Accessibility of the TTC

First, individuals with disabilities need be involved in the development and the delivery of the decision making process of the TTC. A growing recognition in the community aims to understand the needs of transit users. Fully understanding the needs of people with disabilities is essential for the development and design of public transit. Research by Strickfaden et al. (2011) indicates that integrating people with disabilities into the policy and design making process will benefit the policy making environment by introducing new methods of accessibility. This idea of collaboration is beneficial to the future development of better public transit however challenges will occur in developing effective communication between groups. It is important to create symmetry between the types of people by, “preserving the identities of all people involved, encouraging a cross-fertilization of ideas, demanding mutual respect, having genuine concern for others, and supporting a symmetry of dialogue” (Stricken et al., 2011). This involvement for disabled people in the policy making process needs to be part of a larger, more collaborative mindset for the TTC.

The TTC needs to undertake collaborative negotiations with interested parties to better serve the community. A larger role of advocacy groups, transit providers and service developers is necessary to develop a transit system more accessible to the public. In the case of a company in Brussels, a working group called “Access to Mobility for All” (Stricken et al., 2011) was established to meet the needs of people with disabilities. This group included transportation companies, advocates with disabilities, and service providers, which began the collaboration process to redesign the Brussels Metro system (Stricken et al., 2011). The establishment of a unified group, with different perspectives, illustrates the evolution of how people work together in a different ways. This unity has the potential to develop a better transit system, which is designed through the minds of different kinds of actors and through the body, created by the experiences faced of people with disabilities. To address continued issues of accessibility we recommend that the TTC engage the community to better understand the necessary changes.

The TTC and Personal Health Investing in public transit improves overall public health. Access to public transportation

in transit oriented developments (walkable, mixed-use communities located around transit stations) tends to affect riders overall travel activities. Transit provides large health benefits such as increasing physical fitness, improving mental health and allowing lower-income households to have access to a basic form of transportation (Litman, 2010). Using research from Cantwell, Caulfield, O’Mahony (2009), Dailymail (2010), Lachapelle & Frank (2009) Litman, (2010), Stokes, Macdonald & Ridgeway (2010), Spurr (2012), recommendations are made to improve


the TTC in order to promote public health. These recommendations include increased service and decreasing wait times, expanding bus lines and increasing capacity on subways and buses.

Physical Health

Many research studies have concluded that transit benefits physical health. The U.S. Center for Disease Control recommends that an average adult should perform 22 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking to stay fit and healthy. Less than half of American adults achieve this target, but most public transportation passengers do (Litman, 2010). Transit riders exercise the recommended amount while they walk to and from transit stations and stops (Litman, 2010). Another study titled “Public transit users three times more likely to meet fitness guidelines” confirms that riders are three time more likely to meet fitness guidelines and the recommended 30 minutes of moderate physical activity a day compared to people who drive regularly (Lachapelle & Frank, 2009). Policy makers should encourage greater use of local environments for physical activity which would help reduce the prevalence of obesity. The light-rail system helped reduced the body mass index of public transit users by an average of “1.18 kg/m2 compared to non-LRT users in the same area over a 12-18 month follow-up period” (Stokes et al.,2010). Light rail system users were also “81% less likely to become obese over time” (Stokes et al., 2010). Neighborhoods and communities that have easier access to the transit system (such as walkability and mixed land use) will provide large public health benefits. . Mental Health

Riding efficient public transit is less stressful than driving. Commuters who travel by bus

suffer a third less stress than those making the same trip by driving (Daily Mail, 2010). The leel of stress from bus trips is 33 per cent lower than car journey and 93 per cent of the participants said they found driving more stressful (Daily Mail, 2010). There are many factors which make driving more stressful than public transit, especially as congestion increases. Heavy traffic requires the brain to work harder and raises blood pressure and causes physical tension. The relief of trusting someone else to be in charge of the journey was also a key reason bus travel was less stressful (Daily Mail, 2010). Besides being uncomfortable, stress has been related to a whole host of health problems (Stokes et al., 2010). In addition to encouraging exercise public transit can decrease stress and related health problems. Recommendations Even though the public transit has health benefits there continues to be problems within the transit that prevent or restrict transit users from fully enjoying these benefits. One of the main problems is the lack of services in suburban areas. This results in suburban travelers using automobiles as a mean of transportation to commute to downtown Toronto instead of public transit. Residents in neighborhoods with better transit service tend to walk significantly more and


drive significantly less than residents of more automobile dependent neighborhoods (Litman, 2010). Increased wait time during rush hour also creates a stressful environment.

As recommended earlier in this paper, expanding transit into the suburbs and increasing service during peak hours will make transit more attractive. These measures will result in a benefit to public health in Toronto. Putting in more service during rush hour and reducing the wait time which would create a stress free environment. Expanding bus services that are unreliable in places like the suburbs would increase the overall health benefits of Canadians. Insufficient capacity and crowding is a major cause of stress among commuters who use public transport. A study done in Dublin, Ireland found that commuters who travel by Dublin Area Rapid Transit (DART) had higher levels of commuting stress compared to other commuters in Dublin. The higher levels of stress reported by DART users were found to be a result of the crowded conditions on DART services (Cantwell, Caulfield, O’Mahony, 2009). Reducing insecurity and crowding at transit waiting areas and in transit vehicles can help incorporate health objectives into transport planning. Like for example improving public transit service quality like, “increased service frequency and speed, reduced crowding, improved comfort and security, nicer waiting conditions, improved pedestrian and cycling access, and amenities such as washrooms” (Litman, 2010). When all factors are considered, improving public transit can be one of the most cost effective ways to achieve public health objectives Cost Effectiveness

In addition to less measurable social benefits, the TTC maximizes economies of scale to

save individuals and society as a whole money. The following section will address the cost effectiveness of public transit (TTC) using research by the Canadian Automobile Association (2013), Cortright (2012), Dowding (1996), the Economist (2012), Kenworthy (2013) Small & Parry, (2009), Kenworthy (2013), the National Research Council (2001), TTC (2013) and the Toronto Region Board of Trade (2013). These sources conclude that public transit is more cost-effective than private transit for individuals and society as a whole.

Cost-effectiveness is the most easily quantified benefit of public transit in major urban centers. After shelter, transport is the single largest cost for North American households (Economist). New York City saves an estimated 19 billion dollars annually due to the large volume of public transit users compared to private transit (Cortright, 2010). Maintenance and insurance are also major costs of transit. The average annual cost for car insurance in Ontario is $2,000 (CAA, 2013). Meanwhile, a monthly pass for the TTC is 128.50, or $1, 542 for the entire year (TTC, 2013). It is evident that public transit is substantially less expensive for the individual than the average cost of mandatory car insurance- let alone purchasing a car, fuel, parking and maintenance. While it seems intuitive that public transit saves money, this allegation bears further investigation prior to acceptance. Public transit better maximizes the economy of scale than private transit. Economy of scale is a microeconomic concept that holds as enterprises increase in size, a fixed cost can be shared over more units of output, thus decreasing the cost per unit. In transit, these fixed costs


include infrastructure, maintenance and energy inputs. The greater number of people that use the transit system, the more these costs can be shared and each individual user’s cost decreases. The Mohring effect illustrates this economy of scale- individual user costs decline as service occupancy increases (Small & Parry, 2009). For example, one lane in a highway can hold 2,500 people per hour by car, 5,000 per hour by bus, and 50,000 per hour in a train (The future of driving, 2012). Not only are trains and buses a more efficient use of road space, but they increase the number of people who use the road and who have an incentive to invest in its maintenance and upkeep. Due to economies of scale fuel costs for public transit are also generally lower. According to Kenworthy, public transport consumes one third of the energy per passenger kilometer travelled than private transport (2003). As energy prices have increased rapidly over the last decades the economic benefits of public transit’s energy savings have grown. Automobile loving opponents of public transit point out that public transit becomes less efficient as ridership drops below full capacity. This argument seems to be more one for encouraging public transit ridership than not investing in public transit at all. Yes, public transit becomes less efficient as fewer people ride, but it also becomes more efficient as more people ride. Due to their limited capacity cars can never maximize the economy of scale in the same way public transit can. The individual monetary gains from public transit are clear, but there is also an economic benefit for society as a whole.

The economy as a whole benefits from public transit. The saved funds can be directed towards the local economy whereas the profits from fuel sales and car production are often exported to foreign countries (Kenworthy, 2003). Transportation infrastructure benefits the local economy by increasing the land values surrounding the station (NRC, 2001). The Toronto Region Board of Trade estimates that the “Big Move” plan to improve Toronto transit will increase the city’s GDP by $1.19 for each dollar spent (2013). As discussed previously, inequality, congestion and pollution all have significant economic costs. Along with its less tangible environmental and social benefits, public transit can decrease costs and increase profits for society as a whole. Given the collective and individual benefits of transit, there is a strong argument for public funding of public transit. Paying For Transit: A Collective Action Problem

Public transit has positive effects on environment, allows for better urban planning, allows accessibility for those with disabilities and improves our overall mental and physical health. While the recommendations we have proposed for remedying the TTC’s inadequacies are costly, the cost of not implementing such recommendations may be greater. The TTC also costs less for the individual to ride than private transit. This leads to the question- what makes people elect to drive rather than ride the TTC? This section looks to provide a theory as to why people select private transit and how funding me

As a public good, public transit is challenged by the rational choices made by individuals and problems with encouraging collective action. A collective action problem is one in which the whole community would benefit from this public good, but the costs of providing it are too high for one individual (Dowding, 1996). Game theory defines a public good as one which brings


benefits to the community as a whole which are non-rivalrous and non-exclusive (Dowding, 1996). Non-rivalrous means that the benefit is not depleted regardless of the number of people who use it. Non-exclusive means there is no way to prevent those who do not contribute from benefitting from the public good. Transit creates collective goods in three distinct ways.

First, investment in transit infrastructure, public or private, benefits the individual driver or rider as well as society as a whole. The benefits of infrastructure are commonly accepted and obvious- without roads or subway lines, it would be impossible to take any form of transit anywhere. These benefits are currently non-exclusive- anyone can drive on the road or use the subway, even if they did not contribute. Even if they pay a fare or a toll they were not required to contribute any of the initial capital needed to create the infrastructure. They are not entirely non-rivalrous- there is a limited number of people who can drive on the road or ride the subways before they become congested again. But the benefits from decreased congestion are non-rivalrous to a degree- the economic benefit is shared among society as a whole. Given the shared public benefits of investing in transit, it is a public good.

Second, riding on public transit creates benefits that are public goods. These benefits have been explored in detail in the previous sections of this report. The benefits from decreased pollution and congestion are non-exclusive- everyone enjoys cleaner air and less traffic, even if they do not ride public transit. The benefits from decreased pollution are non-rivalrous- the air does not get any less clean the more people that breathe it. Much like investing in public transit, the traffic benefits in terms of congestion for riding on public transit are not non-rivalrous, but the economic benefits are. Given the shared public benefits of riding on public transit, it should also be considered a public good.

Third, use of private transit are also non-rivalrous public goods. A public good does not necessarily have to be something that benefits society as a whole- the same theory can be applied to something that harms society as a whole. The harms from private transit are non-exclusive- even those who do not drive suffer from diminished productivity and increased pollution. The public health system means the costs of obesity and traffic accidents are also shared throughout society. The harms are also tremendous, the negative effects of pollution do not lessen as they are shared throughout society. Given the shared public costs of driving, it should also be considered a public good.

As riding public transit creates public benefits, one would expect the majority to ride transit and reap the benefits. In reality, 70 percent of residents in the GTA chose to drive to work (TRBT, 2013). Rational choice theory says that individuals will only consider the personal costs and benefits, not the public costs and benefits, when making their choice (Gilbert, 2006). The personal benefits of public transit are weighed on an individual level against its personal costs. While the individual bears the initial monetary cost of using private transit, the more long term costs of congestion and pollution are shared throughout the community (Jackson, 1975). The individual also bears any costs associated with increased trip lengths or congestion within the transit system. The congestion on a rush hour train can be equally as unattractive as the congestion on a busy highway. The sum total of the existing incentives means individuals benefit more if they take private transit, while society as a whole benefits from public transit. In other


words, the personal marginal cost of private transport is much smaller than the social marginal cost (Yang et al, 2010). Ridership in private or public transit is often victim to the free rider problem. Since all will benefit from increased use of public transit, regardless of whether they take public or private transit, rational individuals choose to take private transit and maximize personal benefit. This way they receive the personal benefits from riding public transit, as well as the public benefits from private transit. The same rational choice applies when considering investment in public transit infrastructure. The costs of the investment are huge, and weigh only on the individual. Meanwhile any benefits are divided equally in society, meaning the individual’s benefit from the investment is less than the cost. When weighing the costs and benefits of riding on or investing in public transit, the individual finds they benefit more from abstaining than participating. A traditional solution to this free rider problem has been government intervention to alter the costs and benefits and encourage individuals to choose the option that maximizes individual and public good. Investing in Public Transit Infrastructure

Given the massive amount of capital needed to invest in private or public transit

infrastructure, few individuals have the capacity to commit to this investment on their own. One reasons governments exist is to provide an avenue for collectively investing in infrastructure that individuals cannot afford. Through taxation they collect small amounts of money from the individual which total enough to pay for the needed infrastructure. All levels of government currently extensively subsidize private transit infrastructure by building and maintaining roads, bridges, tunnels and traffic signals. In 2008 all levels of Canadian government spent 20.8 billion on highways and 4.4 billion public transit (Lewyn, 2012). Comparatively, subsidies to public transit are more politically contentious. An excellent example would contrast the debates over the crumbling Gardiner Expressway and the proposed Transit City plan. The debate around the Gardiner has rarely been framed as a competition between the suburbs and downtown residents- it is assumed that all will benefit from the infrastructure from public transit. There has also been fairly little debate about the necessity of repairing the Gardiner. Meanwhile the media coverage regarding public transit reveals divisions between different regions of the city vying for funding, private transit users being pitted against public transit users, and a general questioning of the necessity of public transit funding (Fox & Freeman, 2013; Wilson & Alcoba, 2013; Alcoba, 2013). Resistance to forced contributions comes from those in the suburbs, who do not perceive the transit developments as benefitting them directly. In reality all of the GTA, indeed all of Ontario and Canada, benefits from decreased congestion from public transit infrastructure. Given the social benefits of public transit, governments should invest in public transit infrastructure with the same vigour they invest in private transit infrastructure. Decreasing the Costs of Public Transit

Government subsidies in the operation of public transit system can lower the individual


costs of transit ridership and provide a financial incentive for individuals to provide the public good that arises from public transit. First, this investment may be necessary for the continued operation of government funded infrastructure. “It simply doesn’t make sense to invest vast sums of money in new infrastructure without the means to pay for its ongoing upkeep and maintenance.” (TRBT, 2013, 9). Well-funded infrastructure is useless if the system is assumed to be self-reliant when it is not. The Canadian government also already invests substantially in the operation of private transit systems from maintenance to snow removal to police to enforce the laws of the road. Nearly all public transit systems in other industrialized countries rely on public subsidies for almost all of their capital funds and anywhere between 25-75 percent of their operating revenues (NRC, 2001). An often cited statistic is that the TTC receives the lowest proportion of government subsidy for operation costs than any transit system in any other major North American city (TTC Riders, 2012). The fare box ratio is the percentage of operation costs paid by riders fares (TTC Riders, 2012). Table 1 demonstrates the extreme difference between the TTC’s fare box ratio compared to other major metropolitan areas in North America. (refer to appendix)

The unusual reliance on user fees means the TTC places the costs of public transit on the individual rider, rather than society as a whole. Independence from government subsidies can be a strength because the TTC is less reliant on changes in policy like the shift to neoliberalism in the 1990s. Instead, reliance on the riders for funds means that fare increases have become the norm- such as a ten cent hike in 2012, with projected ten cent hikes over the following years (TTC Riders, 2012). Between 2006 and 2011 the number of riders on the TTC increased by 12.5%, fares increased, but service levels only increased by 8.4% (TTC Riders, 2012). When relying solely on user funding, it seems even fare hikes have not been sufficient to increase service levels in tandem with ridership. The cost to society of the subsidy is far less than the gains in social welfare from reduced congestion (Jackson, 1975). Public transit subsidies have been successful in decreasing traffic congestion in Beijing, bringing benefits not only to private transit users, but also to commercial road users (Yang et al, 2010). Studies indicate that rail transit generates congestion reduction benefits that exceed and subsidies any total transit subsidy costs (Litman, 2011). Small and Parry (2009) also found that even subsidies of more than half the operating costs improve welfare in all modes of transit and cities. Subsidizing public transit reflects the benefits of public transit that are spread throughout society, profits that are not currently directed towards the public transit system.

Given that all members of society benefit from public transit, it follows that all members of society should contribute in some way. Subsidies to public transit are designed to share the costs of public transit more fairly through society. The TRBT recognizes that “while reduced congestion benefits commuters (drivers and transit users) in the most direct fashion, there are massive region wide benefits to the economy, environment and peoples’ health and well-being that justify the adoption of both targeted and broad-based (funding) tools”. While subsidies have been successful in encouraging individuals to use public transit and making the public transit system more effective, they are “second best” to policies that alter the cost-benefit calculation related to private transit (Small & Parry, 2009 ; Jackson, 1975). Subsidies may increase the


demand for public transit but unlike adding tariffs to private transit they fail to place the real environmental and social costs on the private transit user. Taxing Private Transit

Taxes on private transit assume a relationship between private transit costs and public transit use- as the prices of public transit decrease, the demand for private transit is assumed to decrease in tandem. Investment in public and private transit is not mutually exclusive- the Downs-Thomson paradox shows that investment in private transit reduces the number of public transport users, thereby increasing overall public transport cost (Basso, 2012). If private transit is made more convenient, it will discourage the individual from taking public transit. As fewer people take public transit, the economy of scale diminishes and individual costs increase. As individual costs increase even fewer people choose public transit, and the costs of public transit rise further. This paradox leaves two important lessons when considering subsidies and taxes. First, if people are discouraged from using private transit they will switch to public transit. Second, the more people that switch to public transit, the cheaper public transit becomes, which encourages even more people off the roads and into the subways, further decreasing the prices of public transit. By increasing the costs of private transit the government is preventing social harm by putting a price tag on social costs while simultaneously encouraging public transit ridership and decreasing public transit costs.

Increasing the costs of private transit more effectively internalizes the real social costs of transit and simultaneously increases demand for public transit. Fuel taxes and purchase taxes on private vehicles put the social costs of pollution and congestion on the car user, rather than society as a whole (Yang et al., 2010). Many countries in Western Europe have been successful in discouraging private vehicle use by taxing fuel, parking fees, automobile sales taxes and vehicle registration taxes (VRT) (NRC, 2001). Canada and the United States have been more hesitant to implement these kinds of measures due to a backlash from the driving electorate. A popular election platform of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was to eliminate the VRT, which he did in 2011 (O’Toole, 2011). Meanwhile, in Europe VRTs can be several hundred dollars per year (NRC, 2001). These registration taxes may decrease the rate of car ownership, but they do not incentivize individuals to drive less once they have paid the VRT (NRC, 2001). Taxes on fuel encourage individuals to decrease the number of miles driven and use alternative forms of transport such as cycling and public transit (NRC, 2001). In Canada, taxes are about half the price at the pump, compared to 60 to 80 percent of the price in Europe (NRC, 2001). Rising fuel prices can create a demand for fuel efficient vehicles, rather than decreasing the number of kilometers driven (NRC, 2001). Even with more fuel efficient vehicles, Europeans drive 50 percent less than North Americans (NRC, 2001). One issue with fuel taxes is that they affect all members and sectors and society, from industry to rural farmers. While these taxes may be justified separately based on environmental considerations, it is more challenging to justify them as a means to encourage public transit use. Rural residents who do not commute would pay the tax without access to the public transit system. Energy intensive industry outside the city would


also be funding public transit that it does not use. Taxes that do not specifically target transit based activity are less likely to have an impact on the behaviour of transit users (Lombardi, 2005). To ensure that the appropriate negative behaviours are targeted, policy makers have turned to tolls for congested roads.

Road use fees have been more appropriate in targeting drivers in the most gridlocked areas who have the option to switch to public transit. Placing responsibility on motorists for private transit infrastructure through tolls has long been an accepted practice in the United States. Around 5 percent of highway revenues come from tolls in the United States (NRC, 2001). Instead of simply financing infrastructure these tolls can also be used to place the true cost of driving in congested areas or at peak times on the driver (NRC, 2001). In New York City, tolls on the bridges and tunnels into Manhattan are used to subsidize public transit into the city (NRC, 2001). In Norway the central business district is surrounded by a ring of tolls to discourage downtown traffic (NRC, 2001). In London a congestion tax has been successful in decreasing congestion in the downtown core- the Canary Wharf business district has 100,000 job with only 3,000 parking spaces (The Economist, 2012). The infrastructure to enforce road user fees can also be expensive and at times impractical to implement on certain roads (Jackson, 1975). Overcoming political opposition and physical limits may be challenging, but it is preferable to the alternative of doing nothing and allowing congestion to increase. Basso also cautions that taxes affect the poorer segments of society the most (2012). If the tax is recycled in a way that promotes social equality, this can mitigate the negative effect of the tax. For example, congestion taxes could be redirected to subsidize free or discounted transit for low-income families. Taxes on private transit must be used cautiously to avoid negatively affecting the most marginalized in society, but they are preferable to subsidies they ensure that the real social costs of private transit are reflected in its price. Opponents of subsidies and taxes often ignore these social costs to focus more narrowly on economic profits. Addressing Opponents of Government Intervention

The opposition to government intervention in the transit market comes from two opposite

ideologies one focussing on the primacy of cost, and the other marginalizing cost. Multitudes of studies have shown that the individual makes their rational choice to take public transit based on performance, safety, convenience, and frequency of service, not cost alone (Perone, 2002). Privileging economic factors can lose focus on the other reasons individuals ride, or don’t ride, the TTC. However, subsidizing the transit system does not necessarily mean that the subsidies will be put to use lowering fares- they could be used to increase service, or make the system more accessible. While making public transit less expensive and private transit more expensive is not the sole solution to increasing transit ridership, shifting resources from private into public transit allows for improvements to be made in all areas relevant to riders, not only fares.

The second argument focuses instead on the primacy of cost considerations. It comes from the neoliberal strain of thought that privileges free markets above all else. Karlaftis found that high subsidies are positively correlated with low productivity and efficiency (1997). Obeng


and Sakano repeatedly found that public transit subsidies increase the overall cost of transit to society- even when congestion is factored in (2008). The economic argument behind this is logical- without competition, the TTC and other public transit systems have a monopoly and have little incentive to increase efficiency (Karlaftis, 1997). Allowing private firms to bid for contracts can reduce the cost of operation up to 50% (Karlaftis, 1997). What these authors ignore is that the benefits from public transit cannot be measured easily in dollars and cents. Karlaftis’s benchmarks of efficiency ignore the important social functions of public transit. Public transit serves to equalize communities and individuals throughout the city, providing them all with equal access to mobility. As Karlaftis acknowledges, governments assumed responsibility of transit systems in the 1950s, when it became evident that private operators would shut down lines that were less profitable, even if they provided necessary services to the city. Today “managerial objectives in public transit systems often differ from those consistent with cost minimization… equity considerations often dictate a non-optimal network size or route structure” (Karlaftis, 1997). Much like the Canadian model of health care, public transit should be measured upon benchmarks of equality and fairness, not simply profit and cost minimization. Our recommendations do not include private-public partnerships as research indicates that private-public partnerships are largely inefficient. For example, Siemiatycki (2006) found that the private-public transit partnership in Vancouver was largely inefficient as it failed to address accountability and at the same time failed reduce limit cost escalations during the planning process. There is a normative value to public transport that is hard to measure when one is trying to minimize the system’s costs. Government interference attaches a market value to the social benefits that arise from public transit- equality, environmental health, and economic savings for society as a whole. It should also be noted that government subsidies do not rule out the popular neoliberal notion of private public partnerships, but suggest instead that the government has a role to play in regulating the private sector and encouraging the private sector to measure benefits in more than economic profits. Subsidies and market interventions to discourage private transit are necessary to embed the real costs of transit into the user’s rational choice and maintain a transit system where social benefits are considered equal to personal and economic benefits. Concluding Remarks

There are various reasons to support public transit. It supports a sustainable environment, reduces the adverse effects of congestion caused by urban sprawl, it creates a more accessible city, it improves riders’ physical and mental health and it is more cost effective. The TTC has not been used appropriately to maximize these potential benefits. We recommend the TTC continue to use fuel efficient resources, increase regional integration strive to make the TTC more accessible, include affected groups in decision making and expanding service at peak hours and in the suburbs. We recommend that the government use subsidies and taxes to overcome collective action problems in providing and encouraging public goods like transit infrastructure and transit ridership. Although, subsidies are effective, taxes on private transit also serve to


effectively internalize the real social and economic costs of private transit. As we are advocating for transit riders in Toronto it is our belief that there consists a major free rider problem in Toronto, and that transit riders have been carrying the burden for far too long. The government should step in to fund public transit infrastructure and reward public transit riders. Public transit not only benefits those who ride it but every citizen in our city.

ReferencesAlcoba, N. (2013, March 1). ‘The Dumbest Way To Do It’: Metrolinx Proposal To Extend Eglinton: LRT Underground Comes Under Fire. The National Post. Retrieved from:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/the-dumbest-way-to-do-it-metrolinx-proposal to-extend-eglinton-lrt-underground-comes-under-fire/

Barber, J. (1995, Jun 02). Toronto urban sprawl is bad for all. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from:http:// proquest.com/docview/384963476?ccount

Basso, L.J. Jara-Diaz, S.R. (2012). Integrating congestion pricing, transit subsidies and mode choice. Transportation Research, 46 (6), 890-900.

Canadian Automobile Association. (2012). Driving Costs Calculator. http://caa.ca/car_costs/

Cantwell M, Caulfield, B & O’Mahony, M. (2009). Examining The Factors That Impact PublicTransport Commuting Satisfaction. Journal of Public Transportation. 12, 2.http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-2Cantwell.pdf.

Cortright, J. (2010). New York City’s Green Dividend. CEOs for CitiesDaily Mail. (2010) Bus Trips Are Less Stressful Than Car journeys.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313526/Bus-trips-stressful-carjourneys.html#iz2NQevxrar.

Dowding, K. (1996). Power. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. 31. print.

Dzurik, A., Leszczynska, D. & Brenner, A. (2011). Mass Transit And Sustainable Urban


Environments. National Urban Transport Institute.http://www.urbanicity.org/Site/Articles/Dzurik.aspx

Fox, C. & Freeman, J. (2013). Toronto Region Board of Trade Calls For Increased Transit

Taxes. cp24.com; Mar. 18, 2013. http://www.cp24.com/news/toronto-region-board-of-trade-calls-for-dedicated-transit tax s-1.1200234#ixzz2OUkzOvw2Gilbert, M. (2006). Rationality In Collective Action. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 36, 1,

3-17.Hardford, J. (2006). Congestion, Pollution, And Benefit-To-Cost Ratios Of US Public Transit

Systems: Transportation Research Part D. Transport and Environment. 11, 1, 45-58.Hess, D. & Lombardi, P (2005). Governmental Subsidies For Public Transit: History, Current

Issues, And Recent Evidence. Public Works Management & Policy. 10, 2, 138-156.IBM . (n.d.). Ibm global commuter pain survey: Traffic congestion down, pain way up. (2011). Retrieved from http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/35359.wssJackson, R. (1975). Optimal Subsidies for Public Transit. Journal of Transport Economics and

Policy. 9, 1, 3-15.Karlaftis, M. & McCarthy, P. (1997). Subsidy And Public Transit Performance: A Factor Analytic Approach. 24, 3, 253-270.Kenworthy, J. (2003). Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases in Urban Passenger. Transport Systems: A Study of 84 Global Cities. Presented to the international Third

Conference of the Regional Government Network for Sustainable Developmet. http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/Transport_Greenhouse.pdf

Lachapelle, U. & Frank, L. (2009). Public Transit Users Three Times More Likely To MeetFitness Guidelines. UBC School of Community and Regional Planning. 30.http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2009/mr-09-031.html

Lewyn, M. (2012, Winter). Sprawl in Canada and the United States. The Urban Lawyer, 44(1), 85+. Retrieved from: http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA295324795&v= 1&u=rpu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=wLitman T. (2010). Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy

Institute for The American Public Transportation Association. 1-35.http://www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf

Litman, T. (2011). Evaluating public transit benefits and costs: Best practices guidebook. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/lib/oculryerson/docDetail.action?docID=10 34499 Metrolinx. (n.d.). Costs of road congestion in the greater toronto and hamilton area: Impact and Cost Benefit Analysis of the Metrolinx Transportation Draft. (2008). Final Report,


Retrieved from http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/costsofcongestion/ISP_08 015_Cost_of_Congestion_report_1128081.pdf

Money Sense (2012). Miles Apart: Suburbs Vs. City. Toronto.http://www.moneysense.ca/2012/03/16/miles-apart-suburbs-vs-city

National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Making transit work. Retrieved from http://faculty.geog.utoronto.ca/Hess/Courses/JPG%201554%20Trans&UF/JPG1554%2

eadings/making%20transit%20work.pdf

Nickle D. (2011). TTC Delays Decision To Cut Off-Peak Service On Some City Bus Routes. East York: Inside Toronto.http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/59761-ttc-delays-decision-to-cut-off-peak

servic -on-some-city-bus-routes/

Obeng, K. & Sakano, R. (2008). Public Transit Subsidies, Output Effect And Total Factor

Productivity. Research in Transportation Economics. 23, 85–98.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2008). “Next Stop Accessibility” Report on Public Transit

Stop Announcements in Ontario. 2-12.http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/%22Next_Step%2C_Accessibilit

% 2_Report_on_the_public_transit_stop_announcements_in_Ontario.pdfO’Toole, M. (2011, February 18). Ford sends out $60 vehicle registration tax refunds two months early. The National Post. Retrieved from:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/18/ford-sends-out-60-vehicle-registration-tax refunds-two-months-early/

Parry, I. & Small, K. (2009). Should Urban Transit Subsidies Be Reduced?. The AmericanEconomic Review. 99, 3, 700-724.Perone, J. (2012). Advantages And Disadvantages of Fare-Free Transit Policy. National

Centerfor Transportation Research. page number?? or link??Spurr B. (2012). TTC’s new crappier commute. Now: Toronto.http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=183999Stokes, R., MacDonald, J. & Ridgeway, G. (2010). The Effect Of Light Rail Transit On

BodyMass Index and Physical Activity. Health and Place. 14, 1, 45-58.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829207000329


Strickfade, M. & Devlieger, P. (2011). The Brussels Metro: Accessibility Through Collaboration. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 105, 10, 638-647.

Tanasescu A. (2007). Poverty, Access to Transit, and Social Isolation. Calgary, Alberta.http://www.calgaryunitedway.org/main/sites/default/files/Poverty,%20Access%20to%2

T ansit%20and%20Social%20Isolation%20aug07.pdfThe Canadian Urban Transit Association. (2002). Promoting Better Health Through

Public Transit Use. Public Transit. 2, 1-. Retrieved from:.http://www.cutaactu.ca/en/publicationsandresearch/resources/IssuePaperNo.2_PromotingetterHealthThroughPublicTransitUse.pdfThe future of driving. (n.d) The Economist http://www.economist.com/node/21563280

Toronto Environmental Alliance & TTCriders. (2010). Clearing The Air On The TTC:Recommendations To Increase The Environmental Benefits Of The TTC. 1-6.http://www.ttcriders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Clearing-the-Air-on-the-TTC-Nov-2101.pdf

Toronto Region Board of Trade. (2013). A Green Light To Moving The Toronto Region: Paying

For Public Transportation Expansion. Discussion Paper. Siemiatycki , M.. Implications of private-public partnerships on the development of urban public transit infrastructure: The case of vancouver, canada. (2006). Journal of Planning Education and Research , 26(2), Retrieved from http://journals2.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/tmp/6925046461194806432.pd

Toronto Transit Comission. (2012). Environmental Plan: TTC Environmental Plan 2008-09.http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Environmental_plan.jsp

Toronto Transit Commission. (1997-2013). Accessible Transit Services Plan – 2012 Status Report.

http://www.ttc.ca/TTC_Accessibility/Accessible_Transit_Services_Plan/Accessible_Ser ice_Transit_Plan_2012.jspToronto Transit Commision. (n.d.) TTC Prices. Retrieved 2013/4/9 from http://ttc.ca/Fares_and_passes/Prices/

Transport Canada. (2009). Hybrid Buses Urban Transportation Showcase Program. Case Studiesin Sustainable Transportation. Urban Transportation Showcase Program. 2-10.http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/programs/cs71e-hybridbuses.pdf

TTCRiders. (2012). The State of Public Transit in Toronto. A Report Card by TTCriders.


http://www.ttcriders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-State-of-Public-Transit-in Toron toUniversity of Toronto. (2013). Getting Around Toronto: Transportation. Seniors. 8. 99-116.

http://www.utoronto.ca/seniors/Toronto/reportChap8.pdf

Urban Transportation Task Force. (2012). The High Cost Of Congestion In Canadian Cities.

Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. 3-25.

http://www.comt.ca/english/uttf-congestion-2012.pdf

Wilson, N. (2013, March 22). ‘Not our problem’: Mayors in the 905 react to proposed transit revenue tools for the GTA. The National Post. Retrieved from:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/22/not-our-problem-mayors-in-the-905 react-to- proposed-transit-revenue-tools-for-the-gta/

Yang, Y., Qi, K., Qian, K., Xu, Q., Yang, L. (2012)/ Public Transport Subsidies Based OnPassenger Volume. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and InformationTechnology. 10, 3, 69-74.

Appendix

Table 1. Farebox Ratio of Public Transit Systems

Toronto 70% New York 54%


Atlanta 29% Ottawa 43%

Boston 42% Philadelphia 38%

Chicago 40% Vancouver 48%

Los Angeles 29% Washington 45%

Montreal 56%

Source: TTC Riders, 2012

inp911essay

Documents