Shaping Transit's Future in British Columbia

photo courtesy of: BC Transit

Auditor General Comments

Public transit is an important part of communities in British Columbia and around the world. It can connect citizens to their jobs, schools, hospitals, friends, family and much more. Having an effective and efficient public transit system not only helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it also supports local economies and gives those who might not have other transportation a way to be mobile in their community.

Public transit is a complex subject with multiple stakeholders involved in making decisions. Achieving progress in public transit is also strongly affected by external factors such as economic and demographic change. In 2008, the provincial government launched its Provincial Transit Plan, which laid out projections for funding, ridership growth, and increased service levels. Five years later, it is a good time to reflect upon what has been achieved, what lies ahead and how expectations align with the current transit landscape.

In 2012, my Office released the results of our audit of BC Transit’s ridership growth. As part of this work, we gathered valuable information from a variety of sources that for many reasons, was not included in the report. I felt it important to share this valuable information so I am pleased to release Shaping Transit’s Future in British Columbia, an interactive and informative web-based resource. As with some of our other informational resources (e.g. January 2013’s Health Funding Explained), which are not audits, we produce such work where information may not be publicly available or available in a single and/or easily accessible location. I have also prepared a pdf summary of this report, which is available here.

Because BC Transit has multiple stakeholders across the province and numerous overlapping but not always cohesive guiding documents, we determined that this work would be valuable to legislators, transit planners and British Columbians to understand the challenges involved in achieving sustainable public transit.

In addition to my Office’s 2012 audit of BC Transit, two other independent reports with recommendations for improvement were also published that year: The BC Transit Independent Review Panel’s Modernizing the Partnership and my Office’s Crown Agency Board Governance: BC Transit. As government develops plans to address these recommendations, the information in this resource and the questions for consideration posed throughout should help to maintain focus on key issues. It should also assist municipal governments and other stakeholders as they plan for the future of their transit systems. Not least, the resource will help British Columbians to understand how our transit system functions and how their own choices and actions are shaped by, and in turn help to shape, the province’s transportation future.

Russ Jones, MBA, CA
Auditor General

Response from BC Transit and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

We would like to thank the Office of the Auditor General for developing this summary report. As highlighted in the report, one of the largest challenges facing public transit today involves balancing and meeting stakeholder needs and expectations with regard to service levels, infrastructure investments and financial affordability. To address this challenge and maintain strong support for public transit, it is imperative that BC Transit continue to find ways to maximize the value it provides to customers, taxpayers, and funding partners.

The Provincial Transit Plan, which was developed during a time of higher service investment and expansion, it set goals to double ridership provincially and increase transit mode share in each of Vancouver, Victoria and the rest of the Province. The expectation of the plan was that the three levels of government would continue to partner and provide the necessary financial support to meet the goals of the plan. The results of a recent performance audit completed by the Office of the Auditor General confirms that while BC Transit has made a number of improvements to facilitate increased ridership, there is a shortfall between actual ridership and the targets set in the Provincial Transit Plan. Much of this gap is due to delays in service expansions and infrastructure investments.

Sustainable long-term revenue sources are fundamental to the ability of BC Transit to deliver on its mandate now and in the future. Since more than two thirds of total revenues come from provincial and local government sources, the growth of transit service is directly linked to financial support from these levels of government as well as the Federal government. Maintaining government funding support requires demonstrating the continuing public demand for transit services (as demonstrated through ridership) as well as the cost-effective use of public monies (as demonstrated through operating and administrative efficiency).

BC Transit remains committed to the objectives of the Provincial Transit Plan and will continue to work closely with provincial and local government partners to maximize the efficiency of existing service levels through service reviews, and strategically prioritizing investment to maximize ridership gains.

BC Transit and the Province look forward to working closely with our local government partners to meet the objectives of the Provincial Transit Plan and this report will be a valuable resource as we plan for transit in the future.

Introduction

An effective public transportation system plays an important role in meeting economic, social and environmental goals. Good public transit shapes the liveability of communities, connecting people to key amenities such as employment, health care, education and recreation.

In British Columbia, the provincial government has articulated a vision for a significant transformation in the way its citizens travel locally. This vision is intended to reduce automobile usage and increase the use of other forms of transportation, such as public transit, cycling and walking. A key reason for this shift is the provincial government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. When the government developed its Climate Action Plan in 2008, it was estimated that transportation accounted for approximately 36 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.- making it the largest contributor to the province’s total emissions. The most recent figures available show a similar trend (37 percent).

Figure 1 - Greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia (click image to enlarge)

The transformative vision is expressed in the Provincial Transit Plan of 2008. The ultimate goals are to:

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as part of the Climate Action Plan;
support the economy through more efficient transportation and reduced congestion; and
improve transportation options for those with mobility challenges.

To achieve these goals, the government set targets to double transit usage (“ridership”) in British Columbia by 2020 and make a substantial increase in the share of trips British Columbians make by public transit (“mode share”).

Figure 2 - BC Transit ridership baseline 2006/07 and target for 2020 (click to enlarge)

Figure 3 - BC Transit mode share baseline and targets for increase by 2020 (click image to enlarge)

The plan includes targets for public transportation in both the Lower Mainland (TransLink’s area of operation) and in the rest of B.C. (BC Transit’s area of operation).

Figure 4 - Communities with BC Transit systems (click image to enlarge and view statistics)

Text box A - Types of transit services (click to read)

Conventional transit serves the general population in urban and suburban settings and offers scheduled bus service that operates on fixed routes.

Custom transit employs a range of vehicles to provide service for passengers with disabilities who cannot use conventional transit. Custom transit systems are operated in many of the same communities that also have conventional transit systems. They are operated largely by HandyDart.

Paratransit serves small town, rural and Aboriginal communities as well as some suburban areas with flexible routing and schedules.

This report focuses on BC Transit. TransLink does not fall within the Auditor General’s oversight role, given it is outside of the government reporting entity.

Large-scale shifts of this nature occur over a significant period of time, and generally require changes in at least three main areas, which are the focus of our report:

policy and governance;
funding; and
design of transit services.

Text box B - Sustainable ridership growth and mode change: A success story from Germany (click to read)

Through the course of our work, we came across one detailed example of a city of similar size to Victoria (and twice the size of Kelowna) that had achieved impressive results in changing public transportation behaviours.

Beginning in the 1970s, the city of Freiburg, Germany, embarked on a goal to improve the sustainability of all its transport modes. Buehler and Pucher (2011) reported that “over the last three decades, Freiburg’s coordinated transport and land-use policies have tripled the number of trips by bicycle, doubled transit ridership, and reduced the share of trips by car from 38 percent to 32 percent.” In addition, by successfully developing the transit ridership market, Freiburg’s public transit is said to cover 90 percent of its operating budget with fare revenues. This, Buehler and Pucher state, makes Freiburg’s transit system one of the most financially sustainable in Germany.

While we have not audited these claims, Freiburg’s transit success could provide valuable pointers for future plans in British Columbia. Some of the most significant success factors are summarized below. With respect to launching a new direction for public transportation, the Provincial Transit Plan represents an initial stage of the transformation that could occur if British Columbia were to attain results similar to those in Freiburg, Germany.

Freiburg’s success has been reported to be the result of various aspects of their approach and the actions they took to implement their vision. These include:

1. Implementation of Controversial Policies in Stages: Freiburg implemented most of its policies in stages, often choosing projects everybody agreed upon first.

2. Plans are Flexible and Adaptable over Time to Changing Conditions: Freiburg phased and adjusted its policies and goals gradually over time. For example, the initial decision to reverse the plan to abandon the trolley system was made in the late 1960s. In the early 1970s, the city council approved the extension of the light rail system—which finally opened in 1983.

3. Policies are Multi-Modal and Include Both Incentives and Disincentives: Freiburg has simultaneously made public transport, cycling, and walking viable alternatives to the automobile, while increasing the cost of car travel. Improving quality and level of service of alternative modes of transport made car-restrictive measures politically acceptable.

4. Fully Integrated Transport and Land-Use Planning: Policies promoting public transport, cycling, and walking rely on a settlement structure that keeps trip distances short and residences and workplaces within reach of public transport.

5. Citizen Involvement is an Integral Part of Policy Development and Implementation: Citizen involvement and public discourse kept the environment and sustainability of the transport system in the news in Freiburg for decades.

6. Support from Higher Levels of Government to Make Local Policies Work: Starting in the 1970s, the German federal government reduced funding for highways and provided more flexible funds for improvements in local transport infrastructure—including public transport, walking and cycling.

7. Sustainable Transport Policies are Long Term, with Policies Sustained Over Time, for Lasting Impact: Changes in the transport system and travel behavior take time. Freiburg started its journey towards more sustainable transport almost 40 years ago. For example, the initial expansion of the light rail system took over a decade.

Source: Buehler, Ralph and Pucher, John. 2011. “Sustainable Transport in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Capital,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, 43-70

Why we produced this report

During the planning and conducting of our separate Audit of BC Transit's Ridership Growth Since the Launch of the 2008 Transit Plan (released in 2012), the Office of the Auditor General gathered information that was not included in the performance audit report. This valuable information, garnered from a variety of sources and compiled here, can assist legislators, stakeholders and British Columbians to understand the challenges and opportunities involved in achieving sustainable public transit.

This report aims to help the public understand:

what the government is trying to achieve with public transit and why
what the current responsibilities are for public transit planning and funding
what some of the challenges are in achieving the goals of sustainable transit
what opportunities could arise from moving public transit in B.C. to a higher level of sustainability

Our report complements several other recent publications on BC Transit, two of which were published by our Office. It also expands the information available to government as it considers how best to address the recommendations made in these other publications.

Recent publications include:

Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia: Crown Agency Board Governance: BC Transit, May 2012;
BC Transit Independent Review Panel: Modernizing the Partnership August 2012; and ,
Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia: An Audit of BC Transit’s Ridership Growth Since the Launch of the 2008 Provincial Transit Plan, December 2012.

Overview

This report provides an overview of the three areas that are key in shaping the future of transit: policy and governance, funding and design of transit services. It also includes observations regarding the context in which BC Transit is pursuing this significant growth strategy.

In addition, it contains questions for provincial ministries, BC Transit, and local governments to consider as they work to increase ridership and develop a sustainable transportation system.

Text box C - A ‘made in Canada’ definition of sustainable transportation (click to read)

Canada has been a world leader in defining and developing the concept of sustainable transportation. In 1996, Canada’s Centre for Sustainable Transportation (CST) began operation as a federally chartered non-profit membership organization. CST drew participants from government, industry and academia who sought to understand the implications of climate and energy shifts for the transportation sector, and to prepare for such changes. With start-up funds from Environment Canada and Transport Canada, CST provided leadership in pursuing sustainable transportation, first by defining what the concept meant and envisioning what such a future would look like. The CST proposed a definition of sustainable transportation in 1997, updated in 2000 to the following:

A sustainable transportation system is one that:

allows the basic access needs of individuals and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and with equity within and between generations.
is affordable, operates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a vibrant economy.
limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, minimizes consumption of non-renewable resources, limits consumption of renewable resources to the sustainable yield level, reuses and recycles its components, and minimizes the use of land and the production of noise.

Canada’s leadership in defining sustainable transportation has been widely recognised beyond our borders, and has been adapted for use by other jurisdictions, including the European Union and California.

The inclusion of the questions to consider DOES NOT imply that the stakeholders are not aware of these issues or that we have judged there to be problems in these areas. The questions are offered to help maintain focus on important issues, many of which are already being addressed by the respective parties.

In this early phase of the transformative plan, the questions we offer are broad and focused on policy-level decisions. As these questions are addressed, the focus can shift to operational-level decisions. Typically, there would be a comprehensive strategic plan at this phase of such a substantial project.

Shaping the Future: Policy and Governance

photo courtesy of: BC Transit

Good practice in governance suggests that when long-term objectives are clear and key partners work together to achieve these goals, the process is more efficient and the likelihood of success increases.

Multiple stakeholders

There are three main stakeholder groups in the development and funding of transit services across BC: the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the BC Transit Crown corporation, and the 130+ local governments outside of metro Vancouver that host transit services. The division of roles and responsibilities is complex. Lead roles for stakeholders vary from one decision-making area to the next.

Figure 5 - Transit roles and responsibilities (click image to enlarge)

Numerous other agencies also have a role to play in transit development, funding, and/or operations:

federal government
transit operating companies
other provincial ministries
major employers, post-secondary institutions and hospitals (concentrated populations of transit users)
airport authorities
BC Ferries

Transit customers’ needs and preferences also influence transit decision-making, and BC Transit solicits input from the public into transit planning.

To consider: Does the current governance model allow for the most efficient and effective allocation of roles and responsibilities to meet the long-term sustainable transportation goals?

BC Transit's objectives

The overriding objective behind government’s Provincial Transit Plan is connecting transit growth and development to climate action goals.

The focus of BC Transit’s mandate in the Transit Act, which was set in 1986, is to support regional economic development

Figure 6 - Timeline of BC Transit legislative and policy initiatives (click image to enlarge)

To consider: How should the varying objectives for transit be reflected in legislation?

Several other policy documents contain a wider range of goals and objectives for BC Transit.

Figure 7 - Major plans and documents relevant to BC Transit (click to read)

Plan/document	Created by	Key content
Provincial Transit Plan (2008)	Provincial government	Goals: To double transit ridership To increase transit mode share for Victoria and rest of province To reduce greenhouse gas emissions Costs: $14 billion, including $11.1 in new funding (for entire province, including TransLink’s area) Province committing $4.75 billion, calling on local governments for $500 million and supportive land use decisions
Climate Action Plan (2008)	Provincial government	Greenhouse gas reduction targets
Climate Action Charter (2007)	Local governments 106 signatory local governments to climate action charter Union of British Columbia Municipalities Provincial government	Goals relevant to transit: Encourage development of compact communities: * reducing car dependency * zoning to encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl All Official Community Plans and regional growth strategies required to include greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, policies and actions Signatories of the Climate Action Charter commit their government to being carbon neutral by 2012
BC Transit Strategic Plan (2010)	BC Transit, with stakeholder input	Purpose: Sets out vision, mission and values to 2030 Identifies five major plan objectives Goals: Develop financial sustainability Support and shape livable communities Change the perception of transit Deliver operational excellence Strengthen our people and partnerships
Government's Letter of Expectations (annual)	Provincial government	Purpose: Provides Government’s annual direction to the Crown corporation and is an agreement on the parties’ respective accountabilities, roles and responsibilities Articulates key performance expectations Goals: For BC Transit, letters of expectation during the period 2008-2011 have included reference to the following priorities: Expanding ridership opportunities Support for economic growth First Nations reconciliation Climate action/carbon neutrality and hydrogen fuel cell buses Transit funding strategies First Nations reconciliation
Corporate Service Plan (annual)	BC Transit board with provincial government	Purpose: Sets out plans and forecasts for three year period Establishes targets Encapsulates goals from BC Transit’s strategic plan as well as Government’s Letter of Expectations
Official Community Plans (ongoing)	Local governments/regional districts	Purpose: Sets longer term vision for the community Statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management All bylaws and works undertaken by a Council or Board must be consistent with the plan Address transportation as well as set targets, policies and actions for the reduction of GHG emissions. Local governments set their own targets; they are expected to have at least one emissions reduction target Goals: An Official Community Plan should work towards the purpose and goals referred to in section 849 [regional growth strategy goals], which include the following goals relevant to transit: Avoid urban sprawl; Minimize automobile use and encourage walking, cycling and efficient public transit; Move goods and people efficiently, making effective use of transportation and utility corridors; […]
Transit Future Plans (2009 onwards)	BC Transit with local governments	Purpose: Transit future plans envision what a community’s transit network should look like in 25 years. It describes and prioritizes infrastructure and investment needed to get there. Analyzes the existing transit system to see how it could be improved. Plans have been approved (as of May 2013) for: Campbell River Cowichan Valley Kamloops Victoria Abbotsford and Mission Chilliwack Central Okanagan Planning underway (as of May 2013) for: Nanaimo North Okanagan* Prince George* Saltspring Sunshine Coast* *Indicates planning towards a Transit Future plan. Other areas have a variety of public consultation processes regarding transit improvements.
Transportation Plans	Local governments (voluntary)	Influence whether people walk, cycle and take transit or drive their car – and associated emissions implications. Many communities have developed comprehensive transportation plans, integrated with their OCP. E.g. City of Kelowna has developed a plan focused on managing transportation demand.
Institutional sustainability plans	Post-secondary institutions, regional health authorities within BC Transit's service areas	An example of sustainability plans that include a transit component is the University of Victoria's Sustainability Action Plan 2009-2014. It includes a goal to increase bus use, cycling and carpooling to 70 percent of campus modal split by 2014, throguh better transit infrastructure. Actions to achieve this goal include working with BC Transit and the CRD to enhance transit service that could include a Light Rapid Transit (or equivalent) line to campus.

Source: OAG based on information from BC Transit and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (2012/13)

To consider: How should all of the various plans that relate to transit fit together?

There is general agreement among stakeholders that increasing transit ridership is an important goal, along with reducing single-occupant vehicle use. There is also widespread support for the ultimate goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion. At the same time, stakeholders hold social, environmental and economic goals for transit. Multiple and often conflicting objectives cannot be resourced equally so they must be prioritized.

Text box D - Transit system goals (click to read)

Public transit systems have a wide range of potential goals and objectives. While each system will articulate and prioritize its goals according to its particular situation and needs, many are widely shared.

Broadly, these fall into three categories: environmental, economic and social goals.

Environmental goals for public transit can include reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing air pollution, decreasing resource consumption and protecting natural spaces by reducing the need for road expansion.

Economic goals include improving access to employment opportunities by moving people efficiently to work, reducing travel time and congestion delays for businesses and employees, enhancing regional development opportunities, reducing need for costly road expansion and creating local employment in the transit industry.

Social goals include improving mobility for people without access to other transportation options (such as seniors, people with disabilities, youth, people on low incomes); connecting people to health, social services and recreational facilities to improve quality of life; and enhancing community livability by creating synergies with active transportation modes such as walking and cycling. Public transit is generally the safest mode of travel. Injuries and deaths aboard transit vehicles are a small fraction of those sustained in private motor vehicles or while cycling or walking. There are both economic and social benefits to reducing the number of accidents in passenger transportation, and having people use public transit is one way to do this.

Different communities have different transit goals. BC Transit partners with local governments to run a wide range of transit systems, from small systems where just one or two bus routes operate to medium and larger systems with high frequency service for commuters. Some of the smaller systems are focused primarily on social goals, while larger systems are often more focused on economic and environmental goals.

To consider: When different transit objectives cannot be pursued simultaneously, how should they be prioritized?

Decision-making on transit policy

Key policy decisions that affect the likely success of transit are made by a variety of stakeholders at different levels.

To consider: What collaboration is required from each partner to ensure effective implementation of transit plans?

For example:

Land Use

Land use policy and planning is a crucial tool for transforming transit usage in a financially sustainable way; conversely, if land-use planning does not consider transit, it can make it more difficult for transit to be financially viable. Local governments in British Columbia currently make many of the key decisions in land use planning. Provincial government decisions also influence land use and development.

Text box F - Transit and land use (click to read)

Various land use factors can affect travel behaviour. These factors include population density, regional accessibility, mix of land use types, and the connections between walkways and roads (see table below). This information can be used for planning land use development and transportation decisions, as well as achieving objectives such as reducing greenhouse gases, improving community livability, and reducing travel costs.[i]

Generally, residents of urban neighbourhoods tend to walk and take public transit more than residents of sprawled locations.[ii] Increased vehicle congestion or parking fees may affect people’s travel behavior by causing them to consolidate trips, use local services more, and shift to alternative modes.

[i] From Litman, Todd, 2012, “Land Use Impacts on Transport: How Land Use Factors Affect Travel Behavior”, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

[ii] From Litman, 2012, p. 8

Land Use Factor	Definition	Travel Impacts
Population density	The number of people or jobs per unit of land	Reduces vehicle ownership and travel, and increases use of alternative modes.
Mix of land use types	The mixture of housing, commercial and institutional land use	Greater mix tends to reduce vehicle travel and increase use of alternative modes, especially walking. E.g. a neighbourhood with housing only results in more people using cars to get to shops and facilities compared with a neighbourhood where these shops and facilities exist together with housing.
Regional accessibility	The location of development relative to a regional urban centre	This reduces per capity vehicle mileage. The further a resident or employee is from the centre, the more they tend to drive.
Connections between walkways and roads	The degree to which walkways and roads are connected	Increased roadway connectivity can reduce vehicle travel, and improved walkway connectivity increases non-motorized travel. Lack of connectivity in suburban streets (cul de sac development), typically designed to reduce through traffic, makes these developments impossible to serve efficiently by public transit.
Parking supply and management	Number of parking spaces per building unit or acre, and how parking is managed and priced	Putting an end to "free parking" tends to reduce vehicle ownership and use, and increase use of alternative modes.
Site design	Oriented for auto or multi-modal accessibility	More multi-modal site design can reduce automobile trips. E.g. a building with a main entrance directly accessible from a sidewalk and/or bus stop encourages walking or transit more than a building whose main entrance is accessible through a parking lot.

Text box G - Transit-oriented development (click to read)

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential and commercial areas designed to maximize transit access and use. Studies indicate that people who live and work in TODs tend to own fewer vehicles, drive less and rely more on alternative modes of transportation than they would in more automobile dependent locations.

The concept of “location efficiency” looks at the combined household spending on housing and transportation. With rising energy costs, the higher land cost of living in a transit friendly neighbourhood can actually make for a more affordable cost of living by reducing the cost of transportation. Not needing a second vehicle, or even a first vehicle, can greatly increase the affordability of urban living, even in moderately sized communities.

To consider: How can transit and land use planning processes effectively be integrated?

Transportation

Broader transportation policies such as the location and size of highways and bridges, parking fees, or road regulations also affect transit’s financial and environmental success. Transit services often cross jurisdictional boundaries, and therefore require collaboration between different jurisdictions and levels of government to run smoothly and consistently. For example, the proposed rapid transit project for Victoria would run through five municipalities and on a highway that is under provincial jurisdiction.

To consider: How are transit goals integrated into the overall vision for the overall vision for transportation in B.C.?

Economic

Government economic policies and other decisions beyond the transportation arena can also influence the success and financial viability of transit services—for example, tax policies (such as a carbon tax, or tax deductions for a bus pass) or regional development policies. Energy policy also has a direct influence on transit; when consumers feel gas prices are low, they may maintain or increase single-occupancy vehicle use rather than choosing more energy efficient transportation such as public transit.

To consider: What are the potential impacts of other government initiatives and activities on the achievement of transit objectives? If these may have a negative impact, how can conflicting priorities be reconciled?

Other important decisions that influence transit success at the local level include the location, fares and level of transit service to be provided. These choices are closely linked to funding decisions. Many of these decisions are made by local governments, or local governments in partnership with provincial government and/or BC Transit – see Transit roles and responsibilities and the BC Transit funding sources section.

The Provincial Transit Plan provided transit authorities and local governments with a vision that could inspire transportation decisions in support of the above mentioned goals. BC Transit’s ability to implement the goals and objectives of the Provincial Transit Plan are dependent upon how transit decisions are made. As local governments have the responsibility to make decisions regarding transit service levels, BC Transit’s ability to control or influence decisions is limited by the realities of local government affordability and its own local goals and objectives for transit. BC Transit advised us that the world economic crisis which occurred subsequent to the release of the Provincial Transit Plan put further pressure on local governments' ability to achieve and support Provincial Transit Plan goals and objectives, and in many cases simply maintaining current transit service levels has proven to be a challenge.

Organizational structure

Doubling ridership and substantially increasing mode share is likely to require transformational shifts in transit operations. Experience in other jurisdictions suggests that such a shift may require significant change in organizational structure, knowledge, and approach for the main stakeholders involved. In British Columbia, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure created a Transit Branch subsequent to the launch of the Provincial Transit Plan to focus on this aspect of transportation.

To consider: What capacity does each partner require (people, skills, knowledge and resources) to deliver their required contributions and what organizational structure is most appropriate?

Policy and Governance: Questions for key stakeholders to consider

1. Does the current governance model allow for the most efficient and effective allocation of roles and responsibilities to meet the long-term sustainable transportation goals?

2. How should the varying objectives for transit be reflected in legislation?

3. How should all of the various plans that relate to transit fit together?

4. When different transit objectives cannot be pursued simultaneously, how should they be prioritized?

5. Where does B.C. stand in relation to the evolving development of public transit in the Pacific Northwest, in Canada, and worldwide?

6. What collaboration is required from each partner to ensure effective implementation of transit plans?

7. How can transit and land use planning processes effectively be integrated?

8. How are transit goals integrated into the overall vision for transportation in B.C.?

9. What are the potential impacts of other government initiatives and activities on the achievement of transit objectives? If these may have a negative impact, how can conflicting priorities be reconciled?

10. What capacity does each partner require (people, skills, knowledge, and resources) to deliver their required contributions and what organizational structure is most appropriate?

Shaping the Future: Funding

photo courtesy of: BC Transit

Experiences in the transit industry suggest that major change in transportation behaviour (people switching from cars to transit) and transit systems requires initial substantial investment and takes place over long timelines, such as 20 years. During that period, funding formulas often have to evolve to remain successful and sustainable.

BC Transit funding sources

The two main sources of funding for BC Transit are government (provincial and municipal), and passenger fares. The federal government also contributes funding for capital infrastructure.

Figure 8 - Sources of funding for BC Transit (click image to enlarge)

Funding for transit comes from these main sources in most of BC Transit’s service area:

provincial government
municipal government
passenger fare revenues (plus a small contribution from advertising and investment income)

In the Victoria Regional Transit System, fuel tax is an additional source of funding.

The federal government also contributes to some transit capital projects.

Text box H - How transit service levels and budgets are set (click image to enlarge)

Passenger fares offset the amount municipal governments fund. This means that if passenger revenues increase, municipal governments have to cover less of their transit costs through other sources, such as property taxes.

Provincial and municipal funding are tied to each other through a legislated cost-sharing formula.The formula requires that each party pay a specific proportion of transit costs each year; therefore, if one funding partner wishes to expand transit services, the other partner has to pay their portion of the associated costs.

Provincial funding levels are set based on a formula in the Transit Act regulations. The formula requires the following cost-sharing:

Figure 9 - Transit cost sharing formula (click image to enlarge)

For an explanation of different types of transit, see Text Box A.

Victoria’s conventional transit system receives a lower provincial share because there is a fuel tax that supplements funding for the system.

Over the past five years since the announcement of the Provincial Transit Plan, transit expansion has been impacted by the ability of either the Province or local governments to fund its share of a proposed transit expansion. Overall, the provincial government’s proportion of transit funding has generally increased since 2008.

Figure 10 - Changes in BC Transit funding sources (click image to enlarge)

British Columbia’s provincial government is above the Canadian average in its contributions to transit operating revenues.

Text box I - Transit funding sources: Comparison of British Columbia to the Canadian average (click to read)

Transit funding is fairly complex and varies greatly across the country, making it challenging to develop clear comparisons between transit agencies in different provinces. Nonetheless, some comparisons have been made that can provide insight into differences between provincial approaches.

British Columbia’s government is one of five Canadian provinces and territories that provides operating funding for conventional transit. From the chart, we see that the provincial contribution in B.C. is higher than the Canadian average, while the proportion provided by municipal contribution is roughly similar, and the proportion covered by passenger fares is lower in B.C. than the average.

Text box I-a - Source of transit operating revenues (click image to enlarge)

If we look at the funding sources on a per capita basis, however, the figures suggest that British Columbia’s municipalities are among the lowest contributors in Canada. This emphasizes the high level of provincial funding for operating costs in British Columbia.

Text box I-b - Municipal operating contributions across Canadian provinces (click image to enlarge)

This high level of provincial funding enables BC Transit to provide transit services in a wider range of communities than in much of the rest of Canada, including communities that would normally be considered too small to afford public transit. This wider scope of communities with transit can contribute towards meeting the social goal of improving mobility. But at the same time, passenger fares do not cover transit costs due to lower ridership.

To consider: What is the most appropriate funding model for BC Transit to meet long-term transit goals and objectives?

Costs and trends of transit funding

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and BC Transit projected that achieving transit growth would require an injection of financial resources for capital projects such as rapid transit infrastructure, new buses and building or expanding transit exchanges, bus garages and maintenance facilities. In addition to the cost of expanding transit to achieve the growth targets, there are substantial capital costs just to maintain existing services. For example, fleet replacement costs were 75 percent of BC Transit’s capital budget during the period from 2007/08 to 2011/12.

Along with capital investment, expanding transit services also entails an increase in operating funds, at least until the time when ridership growth is significant enough that passenger fares cover the costs of transit services.

Text box J - Can increasing transit ridership eventually pay for transit growth? (click to read)

There are several ways of looking at the costs of public transit.

From one perspective, public transit should aim to cover as much of its costs through its own revenues as possible; thereby decreasing its reliance on government subsidies. Transit agencies can achieve this goal by reducing costs through efficiency measures and ensuring their transit system encourages high ridership and therefore, higher revenue. Achieving this depends on a number of factors, including land use patterns and policies that make transit use more appealing to potential riders than driving. Some transit systems have been successful in recovering a large portion of their costs through revenues. Freiburg, Germany, recovers 90 percent of its costs through revenues. Read their story.

Worldwide, the ratio of fares to operating costs is highest in places with high urban population densities, such as Hong Kong, Taipei and Singapore where the transit systems even generate a profit. In Canada, Toronto has the highest fare recovery ratio with Go Transit (82.2 percent) and the Toronto Transit Commission (71.3 percent), followed by Montreal with 57 percent and Vancouver at 52 percent. In the United States, there are three systems with a 60-65 percent fare box recovery ratio: San Francisco, Washington, DC and Philadelphia/New Jersey.

Another perspective on transit costs is that as travel shifts from cars to transit, the increase in transit use can reduce both direct (building and maintaining the infrastructure) and indirect (costs of land needed for parking, road congestion or traffic safety) costs associated with highway and road infrastructure.

Transit can stimulate economic benefits as well. It is labour intensive and therefore transit expenditures tend to stimulate more jobs and local business activity than most other transportation investments. Research suggests that a typical transit investments creates 19 percent more jobs than the same amount spent on a typical set of road and bridge projects.

Another source of potential financial payoffs from transit investment can be found in the correlation between some of the world’s most affluent city-regions and their well developed public transit systems. This relationship exists at several levels of urban scale from mega cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo to smaller cities such as Zurich, Geneva, and Copenhagen.

Therefore, if all of the direct and indirect costs and benefits of transit as compared with road investments are taken into account, the calculation would likely favour transit in a way that means transit investments would eventually pay for themselves.

In 2007, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s estimate was that to achieve their goals of increased transit usage by 2020, capital and operating costs would amount to approximately $2.6 billion.

Figure 11 - Projected costs of transit expansion (MInistry of Transportation and Infrastructure projections, 2007) (click to read)

In 2007, when the government was preparing the Provincial Transit Plan, it developed several possible scenarios for the future of transit, with a focus on Greater Victoria as the system with the greatest potential for transit increase. One scenario was simply to maintain the existing transit market share (also referred to as “transit mode share”). The second scenario was to increase transit’s market share in Victoria by approximately 5 percent, and the third scenario was to increase it by 8 percent. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure developed projections for how much it would cost to achieve each of these three scenarios. When the Provincial Transit Plan was produced in 2008, the targets from Scenario 2 and 3 were not used. Instead, the goal set for increased market share was 2.5 percent for Victoria and 1 percent for the rest of B.C. (see Figure 3). There was no estimate for total costs required to achieve this goal for BC Transit, as the total costs for the Provincial Transit Plan were provided only at the province-wide level, putting together the costs for TransLink and BC Transit to meet their goals. Nonetheless, we can get a sense for the costs of this transit expansion because the market share targets set were half way between the targets in Scenarios 1 and 2. Therefore, the costs associated with achieving these targets could be expected to be approximately half way between Scenario 1 and 2. Although transit costs are not normally linear, for simplicity, we have assumed the costs associated with achieving these targets would be approximately half way between Scenario 1 and 2.

Figure 11 - Projected costs of transit expansion (Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure projections, 2007) (click image to enlarge)

These figures show that just to maintain transit’s existing market share was projected to require $2,411 million from 2007 to 2020. To increase transit’s market share in Victoria by five percent and then eight percent would require an additional 14 percent and 39 percent increase in expenditure respectively. To achieve the Provincial Transit Plan target, which was half way between Scenarios 1 and 2, the projected cost would be approximately $2,678 million.

This translates to an average annual increase of 4.1 percent.

The provincial government put forward a vision for, and commitment to, public transit in the province in the Provincial Transit Plan, and called upon its government partners at federal and municipal levels to join in the vision. BC Transit has worked towards achieving the goals of the Provincial Transit Plan through its partnerships with local governments, and relies strongly on their support to meet the targets.

Actual total expenditures from 2007/08 to 2012/13 have increased by an annual average of 9 percent. This increase is higher than what the ministry initially projected would be required, but lower than what BC Transit anticipated in its service plans during the first three years after the launch of the Provincial Transit Plan. BC Transit considers that the economic downturn has been a constraint on the availability of funding for transit expansion.

Figure 12 - Expenditure trends for transit provision from 2007/08 (click image to enlarge)

Total expenditures are comprised of capital and operating expenditures, and the trends have been different for each type. Actual capital expenditures from 2007/08 to 2012/13 are lower than projected, assuming an even distribution to 2020. Operating expenditures are higher than what the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure originally projected would be required to meet their goals for 2020. However, BC Transit’s projection from its service plans anticipated higher operating expenditures than what was actually spent for four of the five years since the plan was launched.

Figure 13 - Funding commitments in the Provincial Transit Plan compared with actual expenditures (click to read)

By the end of the 2012/13 fiscal year, approximately five years had passed since the announcement of the Provincial Transit Plan. The PTP targets were to be achieved by 2020, which means that this period represents just over one-third of the total. Therefore, a basic expectation would be that the provincial government would have spent approximately 33.3 percent of the projected budget for the Provincial Transit Plan. However, it should be noted that expenditures often do not follow a smooth growth pattern, and therefore, this estimate is very approximate. It is used to give a basic sense of where things are at by this point in time in relation to the overall expectations for the plan’s implementation.

Capital funding

Figure 13-a - Projected versus actual fleet expenditures to 2012/13 (click image to enlarge)

The above chart shows that the number of buses purchased to the end of the 2012/13 fiscal year was 93 percent of the projected Provincial Transit Plan total for BC Transit, while the cost of the bus purchases was 42 percent of the anticipated total. This suggests that the cost for bus replacement and expansion has been lower per bus than was expected.

Total capital expenditures (includes BC Transit and TransLink)
Expected costs (PTP)	Total capital expenditures for PTP expansion to 2012/13 (BC Transit and TransLink)	Total capital expenditures for PTP Expansion to 2012/13 (BC Transit only)*	BC Transit's proportion of total PTP capital expenditures to 2012/13	Provincial expenditures on PTP capital projects to 2012/13 compared with PTP estimate
$4750 million	$441.88 million	$49.81 million	11%	9%

*In addition to the amounts in the table, the provincial government has contributed over $151 million toward asset replacement for BC Transit, largely to replace obsolete buses.

Source: OAG calculations from Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and BC Transit information

The above table suggests that total capital expenditure towards the Provincial Transit Plan goals has been lower than the 33.3 percent that would expected by the end of 2012/13, if a third of the money were to be spent by this point. However, the expectation was that the expenditures would not be distributed evenly across the period of implementing the plan. Instead, 13 percent was to be spent in the first four years, and 53 percent in the final four years. Two of the largest rapid transit projects within TransLink’s area of operation were not expected to begin until after 2015/16.

Municipal and federal governments also contribute to capital expenditures (municipal governments make their contribution through debt service payment). $47.63 million was the total capital expenditure for BC Transit for 2012/13. The amounts contributed by the different parties are determined on a project by project basis. Therefore, each year, the provincial and local government proportions would be different. In 2012/13, the proportions contributed by each partner are shown in the pie chart below.

Figure 13-b - Share of capital expenditures 2012/13 (click image to enlarge)

Operating Funding

There was no specific commitment in the Provincial Transit Plan with respect to operating funding costs to support the anticipated expansion of transit services. It is possible to compare, however, the projections for operating costs by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in the scenarios it developed in 2007/08, and the projections set by BC Transit in its service plans, with the actual operation expenditures annually since 2007/08.

Figure 13-c - Projected versus actual operating funding (click image to enlarge)

A large proportion of operating expenditures is the delivery of transit service hours— that is, the number of hours the buses are on the road. The number of transit service hours delivered during the period since the Provincial Transit Plan was launched was lower than anticipated.

Text box K - Actual service hours delivered compared with projections from 2007 (click to read)

Transit service hours are considered by BC Transit to be the key factor influencing ridership. The more hours of buses on the road, the greater capacity to carry riders. This works by providing transit where it did not exist previously as well as increasing the frequency. Research suggests these two factors are key in enabling people to rely on transit as a regular mode of travel.

From BC Transit’s projections in 2007/08, service hours would need to increase annually by 4.8 percent to reach the target for 2020. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure projections were slightly lower; they projected service hours for BC Transit would need to increase by 3.8 percent annually to achieve a 2.5 percent growth in transit mode share by 2020 (with a focus on Victoria, but also increasing transit in the rest of the province).

The actual average annual increase in service hours from 2007/08 to 2012/13 was 3.3 percent.

This is likely related to an increase in the cost of providing transit services.

Figure 14 - Cost increase to provide transit services (click to read)

Operating costs per service hour increased on average 4 percent annually, from 2007/08 to 2012/13, which is approximately 2 percent above the average inflation rate over the same period. This increase in costs is connected with a range of factors, such as fuel prices, wages, parts and maintenance, etc.

Figure 14 - Increase in cost of transit service provision (click image to enlarge)

Therefore, achieving 2020 targets will require even more funding for operating costs than anticipated in the 2008 Provincial Transit Plan.

To consider: Are existing funding commitments and sources sustainable given the long-term objectives and timeframes targeted?

The understanding and estimation of transit development costs is more advanced than the quantification of transit benefits. As the Freiburg example in Text box B has shown, there are real economic benefits, ranging from higher cost recovery in transit operations to reduced health care costs from safer means of mobility, that accrue to society. However, the distribution of transit costs and benefits is not symmetrical. Many of transit’s benefits will accrue to government departments outside transportation (e.g. health and social services departments), while the costs for developing public transportation are concentrated within the transport department’s budget. In addition, the economic benefits from investing in public transportation often lag behind the costs by a decade or more.

Funding challenges of long-term transit planning

In addition to challenges related to annual funding and decision-making, the funding aspect of long-term transit planning can also be difficult. For instance, government budget commitments are made on 12 month cycles, yet it takes approximately 18 months from ordering to receiving a new bus, thereby running costs through multiple financial years. Given the limited production capacity for transit vehicles in North America, if many other transit agencies pursue similar goals of significantly increasing transit ridership, the lag time for acquiring the vehicles and other facilities could grow. BC Transit is working with its partners to develop processes to address some of the challenges related to long-term transit planning.

Text box L - Changes underway for long-term planning (click to read)

BC Transit is working to provide a longer-term projection for plans and budgets. This includes working with their partners to develop a three-year plan.

This is expected to allow all partners to be better prepared, as longer-term or larger changes are anticipated. This also makes it less likely that any of the partners will be surprised by a sudden increase or decrease in budgets.

Longer term planning is also important because it takes up to two years to get a new bus on the road.

BC Transit will be working with local governments to set transit service standards. These standards will help guide the development of transit and influence decisions around where transit should be to meet individual community needs.

To consider: What long-term funding commitments are required to facilitate effective and efficient long-term planning?

To consider: What is the capacity of the transit supply industry to produce additional buses or respond to demand for different types of buses to meet transit expansion plans?

Transit funding as a tool to achieve goals

Transportation funding can be used as a tool to achieve the goal of increasing transit use and decreasing vehicle use, if it is designed to send market signals to customers that influence their travel choices.

Text box M - Transit funding and its impact on transportation behaviour (click to read)

Transit research has shown that higher fuel prices can cause people to shift from car travel to public transit.[i]Because of this, public policy decision makers have sometimes used a tax on fuel to encourage this shift. A fuel tax can also generate additional funds to invest in the transit system to ensure service can meet demand. This strategy works well at the beginning of a transformative shift, although it may cease to be effective after a certain point, as raising gas prices through taxation can reduce gas consumption, thereby reducing the funding for public transit. (Such was the case with TransLink in Vancouver.) Long-term strategic thinking will help to ensure such strategies are sustainable, as no one funding instrument is guaranteed to work over the long-term and adaptation is needed.

Other pricing policies, such as increasing parking charges or implementing congestion pricing, can also encourage a shift from cars to public transit. In February 2003, the city of London, England introduced a fee for driving cars into the city in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion. The funds raised by the congestion charge were to be used to improve other modes of transportation. The result has been improved bus and taxi service and reduced traffic congestion; the city has also raised funds for transportation improvements.[ii]

The reduced congestion enabled more efficient bus service by raising the speed of bus travel. Not only does this make bus travel more attractive, since passengers get where they’re going faster and more reliably, it also allows the same number of buses to make more trips each day because they are moving along their routes more quickly. Increasing bus speeds by reducing congestion and increasing signal and traffic priority is one way to get more buses for ‘free’.

[i] Litman, Todd, 2012, ‘Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-Elasticities’, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
[ii] Litman, Todd, 2011, ‘London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities’, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, p. 1.

Currently, BC Transit has a funding source that is directly linked to transportation behaviour for the Victoria regional transit system, which is the gas tax. The gas tax is added to the price of gasoline, which raises the cost for customers at the pump (3.50 cents dedicated motor fuel tax – BC Transit Victoria). Raising the cost of gasoline tends to reduce consumer use, encouraging people to use alternative transportation methods, such as transit. At the same time, the money collected from the gas tax goes directly to fund transit. In the rest of the province, BC Transit’s funding comes from property tax and provincial contributions from income taxes.

To consider: How can transit funding sources be designed to achieve the greatest positive influence on transportation behaviour?

Funding: Questions for key stakeholders to consider

1. What is the most appropriate funding model for BC Transit to meet long-term transit goals and objectives?

2. Are existing funding commitments and sources sustainable given the long-term objectives and timeframes targeted?

3. What long-term funding commitments are required to facilitate effective and efficient long-term planning?

4. What is the capacity of the transit supply industry to produce additional buses or respond to demand for different types of buses to meet transit expansion plans?

5. How can transit funding sources be designed to achieve the greatest positive influence on transportation behaviour?

Shaping the Future: Design of Public Transit Services

photo courtesy of: BC Transit

To attract new customers to switch from cars to transit while maintaining existing customers, public transit systems typically have to understand their potential customers and diversify their services to appeal to different market segments. Measuring and monitoring progress are key aspects of managing the change in the design of transit services.

BC Transit’s measurement and monitoring of progress

Translating government’s environmental, economic and social goals for transit transformation into concrete objectives and then setting measurable targets that allow the public to assess how well the goals have been achieved is challenging. BC Transit is focused on measuring ridership. Monitoring progress toward the mode share goals has been more difficult.

Text box N - Challenges of measuring success for public transit (click to read)

One of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s main goals is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help achieve the province’s climate action goals. The ministry has translated this goal into several objectives and strategies, including:

increasing the use of transit, cycling, and other alternative modes of transportation; and
reducing the use of single-occupant vehicles.

Another important goal is to reduce traffic congestion.

To assess its success, the ministry has one main measurement that it monitors: annual public transit ridership in British Columbia.

Ridership

Transit ridership in this definition means the number of transit rides taken in a year. Transit ridership is one of the simplest measurements to monitor, and is commonly used to assess transit success across public transportation agencies.

The challenge is that transit ridership can increase without automobile use decreasing; therefore, the ultimate goals of reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions may not be achieved.

This can occur because of the phenomenon known as “induced demand.” Induced demand is when people increase their total travel because additional transit options are made available to them. Take the following hypothetical example:

Mr. Smith habitually takes the bus to get to and from work every day. Let’s assume that he does not have a car and cannot get to the library by bus. When a new bus service to the library is introduced, he starts to make two extra trips each day. Mr. Smith’s transit ridership doubled, but there would be no related reduction in traffic congestion or greenhouse gas emissions because this is a new trip that he was not making before.

On the other hand, if Mr. Smith did have a car and he used to drive to the library, switching from car to bus for that trip means his transit ride would contribute to reduced traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, we cannot know which of these scenarios is accurate just by measuring the increase in transit trips. Other measurements are necessary to tell if traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced.

Mode Share

Another measurement that transportation agencies use to monitor the reduction in the use of single-occupant vehicles is “transit mode share.” Transit mode share refers to the proportion of the total trips people take by transit in a given area . For example, in Victoria, the transit mode share was last measured by the Capital Regional District (CRD) in its travel survey in 2011 and it was 6.3 percent (see Figure 16), which was a slight decrease from the mode share of 6.4 percent in 2006. The Provincial Transit Plan includes targets for increasing transit mode share by 2020. (See Figure 3) However, BC Transit and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure do not include mode share targets in their respective service plans.

Mode share is typically calculated by estimating the total number of trips people take within a region and dividing this by the number of trips taken by each mode of travel. The most reliable method to measure mode share is through a large-scale population survey.

Large-scale surveys are costly; therefore, mode share is not measured very frequently. In the CRD, the main travel survey is conducted every five years. In the rest of BC Transit’s service areas, mode share is measured through the national census every five years. However, the census only captures how people travel to work, whereas the CRD’s study includes all trips made in a day. In the CRD, trips for travelling to work made up only 16 percent of the total trips made in a day.

An additional measurement challenge is that transit mode share can increase, but if total trip length and/or the number of total trips also increases, there may not be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Take the following hypothetical example (click image to enlarge):

In Smalltown in 2010, the transit mode share was 6 percent and the single-occupant vehicle share was 60 percent. If the people of Smalltown took 100 trips a day, this means that six trips were taken by transit and 60 trips by single-occupant vehicle. (The rest of the trips were made by walking, taxi ride, etc.)

In 2011, the Smalltown transit mode share increased to 6.5 percent and the single-occupant vehicle share decreased to 59.5 percent. However, the total number of trips also increased to 150 per day. This means that 9.75 trips were taken by transit and 89.25 trips were taken by single-occupancy vehicle. With this increase in the total number of trips, neither traffic congestion nor greenhouse gas emissions were reduced, despite the improvement in transit mode share.

Given that other stakeholders have different objectives for transit, other measurements of success may be required. For example, municipalities may be interested in monitoring the efficiency of transit service delivery, or access to transit services.

Text box O - BC Transit Independent Review Panel recommendations on performance measurement (click to read)

The Independent Panel that reviewed BC Transit in 2012 recommended changes to BC Transit’s performance reporting for local governments. These recommendations covered system and route performance, and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the local transit system.

While we have not examined the panel’s recommendations around performance measurement, we present them here for the purposes of showing the wide range of performance measures that could be useful for a transit agency to monitor and report on for different purposes. Our focus in this report is on performance measurement that would provide information for monitoring the long-term goals and outcomes of the transit system, which may be different from, but could complement, those that are needed to support local government decision making on an annual basis for routes and services.

Panel Recommendations:

Recommendation 12: BC Transit should work with local governments to set appropriate service standards for each transit system and provide annual data on system and route performance.

Recommendation 13: BC Transit should provide reports to Councils and Regional District Boards at least twice a year on:

system ridership;
cost per capita;
passengers per capita;
service hours per capita;
cost per hour;
cost per rider; and,
revenue cost ratio.

BC Transit should also provide each local Council and Board comparisons with peers and performance over time for each of these measures.

Recommendation 14: BC Transit should develop, in partnership with local government staff, performance reporting templates which meet local government staff needs.

To consider: What measurements are best suited for monitoring progress toward meeting the government’s ultimate goals for public transit?

Transit's performance results

A key performance indicator for BC Transit is ridership levels in each municipality. Combined, they total approximately 50 million rides per year in the province.

In 2008, BC Transit projected that it would achieve the goals of the Provincial Transit Plan for ridership and mode share by 2020. Across the province, they calculated that this would mean an average annual ridership growth of 5 percent– although the expectation was that growth would not be linear. It was expected that new transit initiatives, such as rapid transit, would lead to spikes in ridership. These were not explicitly modelled in the projections, because of lack of certainty regarding when new initiatives would be complete.

In 2012, the Office of the Auditor General completed an Audit of BC Transit's Ridership Growth Since the Launch of the 2008 Provincial Transit Plan. We found that BC Transit’s ridership growth during this period was 27 percent lower than it projected needing to meet the Provincial Transit Plan target by 2020.

In 2012/13 there was a drop in ridership, which BC Transit attributes to service reductions in a number of communities across the province, as well as a labour disruption in Victoria during the last half of the year. This translated to BC Transit’s ridership growth being 40 percent lower than it projected needing to meet the Provincial Transit Plan target by 2020. Moving forward, BC Transit has adjusted their forecasts to anticipate a lower growth trend for the next three years, leaving a gap of 46 percent by 2015.

Figure 15 - BC Transit ridership targets and forecasts versus actual results (click image to enlarge)

Given the lower forecast for ridership, BC Transit will be challenged to meet the 2020 milestone. As a consequence, it will also take longer to realize the sustainability outcomes associated with a mode share shift from automobile to transit.

While BC Transit is not measuring mode share, the Capital Regional District’s travel survey results show that there was a slight decrease in transit riders between the last survey in 2006 and the most recent one in 2011. Nonetheless, there was an increase in sustainable transportation modes overall, due to an increase in walking, which led to a slight decrease in automobile use.

Figure 16 - Victoria travel mode shares 2006 and 2011 (click image to enlarge)

To consider: Given that changes in the transport system and travel behaviour take time, have reasonable timelines been set to achieve targets and outcomes? Can the strategies developed to achieve objectives be sustained over time?

Strategies to achieve goals

In order to increase ridership and transit mode share and meet the ultimate goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion, a portion of the population who primarily use an automobile for transportation will need to make alternative travel choices. This target group is referred to as “choice” riders because they have other options for transportation and will only choose to use transit if they see it as a better option than their single-occupant vehicle.

Text box P - Captive vs. choice riders (click to read)

Some people who use public transit have no other options to meet their transportation needs and are therefore dependent on public transit, e.g. school students, people without a car, or a license, or mobility issues. These people are referred to as “captive” transit riders.

When people have a car or other means of transportation available to them but make an active choice to use public transportation, they are considered “choice” riders. Because they have other choices for their travel, they will normally choose public transportation only when it is perceived to be better than their other choices. This perception could be based on many factors: cost, comfort, convenience, travel time, socializing, or ethics.

Figure 17 - Potential and actual transit ridership groups (click to read)

BC Transit’s customer satisfaction survey results (2013) show that province-wide, 53 percent of people surveyed commute to work or school and have a vehicle available for these trips if they need it. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transit promoters could target these people to convince them to make that choice of transit over vehicle use.

Figure 17-a - Potential transit commuters in B.C. (click image to enlarge)

However, not everyone has the option of giving up their vehicle for their commute. Over one-third of the commuters surveyed reported that their employment requires them to use their own vehicle. The remaining two-thirds of “choice” commuters however, would be a potential target group for BC Transit to try to convert.

Potential “captive” commuter population

On average across British Columbia, 6 percent of people surveyed by BC Transit in 2012/13 do not have a vehicle available to them for work or school commuting. This largely comprises the “captive” transit rider group, although some of these people might commute by walking, cycling, or carpooling rather than transit. The highest proportion of this group, almost one-third, is in the 15-24 year old age bracket (29 percent in 2012).

Victoria and Whistler have a higher proportion of the population without access to a vehicle for commuting to work or school, with 10-11 percent in this “captive” population group. Connected with this trend is that Victorians, Whistlerites and those living in Tier 3 communities have fewer cars per household (1.8 or 1.9 cars) than others in the province (2 cars).

Potential “choice” and “captive” populations in the Capital Regional District – beyond commuting

Looking beyond commuting travel and considering all trips taken, the picture is quite different. Within the Capital Regional District area, according to the Origin and Destination Study 2011, just over one-third of all non-vehicle trips were taken by “choice”, in that a vehicle was available to the traveler. For the remaining two-thirds, a vehicle was not available, so that traveler was “captive” to transit, walking or cycling.
This suggests that there is a fairly large pool of potential “captive” population that could ride transit in Victoria. It helps to explain that 11 percent of Victoria’s survey respondents take transit for their non-commuting travel, and another 22 percent cycle, walk or use a variety of transportation modes. Future growth would likely have to come from choice riders.

Figure 17-b - Profile of regular riders vs. non-riders (click image to enlarge)

In some communities, ridership will likely increase by expanding transit services into areas where an existing demand for services is not currently being met.

In other communities where transit services largely meet existing demand, more significant change will need to occur to shift people from automobiles to transit. Transit systems will need to be seen as a better alternative to personal vehicles and consumers will need to change their travel behaviour.

Text box Q - Factors encouraging ridership growth (click image to enlarge)

For example, in Victoria, there are plans to introduce rapid transit to achieve a substantial shift in transportation choices for commuters.

Text box R - Rapid transit in the Victoria Regional Transit System (click to read)

Over the past four years, the Victoria Regional Transit System has been challenged to grow ridership at the same rate as it has been increasing its transit service hours. This results in diminishing returns on investment in part because the transit system is generally able to meet existing demand, but it is more difficult to attract new riders without innovation or change.

It is in this context that the Victoria Regional Transit System is considering options for rapid transit. Rapid transit is seen as a way to address the increasing traffic congestion between the rapidly growing western communities and downtown Victoria. Rapid transit is intended to provide an attractive, convenient, integrated, environmentally responsible, sustainable and affordable alternative to single occupancy vehicles.

Rapid transit is designed to operate in an exclusive right of way, thereby bypassing traffic congestion and arriving faster than a bus stuck in traffic or than a person driving their own car in congestion.

The Victoria Regional Rapid Transit project is still in the planning phase. A local funding taskforce has been established to consider funding for the longer-term project, which includes the option of rail-based rapid transit. In the shorter term, plans are being considered for actions to give transit priority in some key travel corridors. This is intended to allow transit to reduce travel times and encourage commuters to switch from single occupancy vehicles to transit.

In order to attract more people to transit, it is useful for transit systems to understand the key factors that influence peoples’ satisfaction with transit services. In addition, it is important to assess which of these factors the transit agency can influence, and what the potential costs and benefits of addressing each factor would be.

BC Transit has done some analysis of these service satisfaction factors using a “penalty/rewards” framework.

Figure 18 - Using penalty/rewards analysis to understand customer satisfaction (click to read)

Customers’ perceptions of a company depend on the services provided and their own expectations for these services. The penalty/reward analysis can help to assess how much a low or high score on a particular aspect of service affects overall customer satisfaction with the service. By analyzing customer satisfaction survey results, researchers can classify service aspects into four categories:

Figure 18 - BC Transit's penalty/rewards framework (click to enlarge)

Their research found that the key attributes that affect overall customer satisfaction with transit are:

Personal safety while riding the bus
Clean and well maintained buses
Courteous bus drivers
On-time service

In addition, factors such as daytime service frequency and trip duration are classified as strong “linear” attributes. This means that being rated poorly on these attributes will result in overall dissatisfaction, and being rated highly will result in satisfaction. The research states that because of this linear relationship, good customer ratings on these attributes are important.

The frequency of evening service is a strong reward attribute, suggesting it has potential to add value and satisfaction among transit users but may not be a first priority for attracting new riders. Other factors such as overcrowding, reasonable fare prices, and payment options were found to be minor contributors to overall customer satisfaction.

To consider: Do we fully understand the most important factors that influence British Columbians' satisfaction with transit services and their travel mode choices (this may differ by region and community)?

Which of these factors are within the control of BC Transit? The Ministry? Local governments?

Are the benefits greater than the costs of the option(s) being considered to change transportation behaviour?

Customer satisfaction with BC Transit services

Overall, customer satisfaction with BC Transit has been fairly stable for the past three years, with about a third of people surveyed rating the service as very good or excellent. Satisfaction is higher in Victoria, but has declined from a peak in 2005/06. The highest satisfaction level with transit among the larger communities (“Tier 1” conventional transit systems) in 2011/12 was in Prince George, though it has been decreasing. In the medium-sized conventional transit systems (“Tier 2”), average satisfaction was slightly lower than the provincial average, while in the smallest conventional transit systems (“Tier 3”), satisfaction was higher than the provincial average.

Figure 19 - Customer satisfaction with transit service (click to read)

Figure 19-a: Customer satisfaction with BC Transit services - 2012/13 (click image to enlarge)

Figure 19-b: perceptions of how the local bus system has changed over the past year (2012/13) (click image to enlarge)

These figures present a slightly different picture from the overall satisfaction scores. In this view the Tier 3 communities had the highest proportion who felt the local bus system had improved in the past year followed closely by Kamloops and the Tier 2 systems. Whistler had the highest proportion who felt the system became worse, which may be related to cuts to transit services levels by the municipality.

Non-riders express lowest satisfaction compared with occasional riders and regular riders.

To consider: If demand increases, as a result of policy disincentives to automobile use or other transit incentives or motivating factors, will the quantity, quality and affordability of transit services be sufficient to meet and sustain demand?

In 2012/13, BC Transit used their customer survey to find out how British Columbians feel about the importance of transit in their communities. The result was very interesting. It shows that while only 33 percent of people used transit in the past year on average, 84 percent of people feel transit is important or very important to their community. This was up to 92 and 93 percent in Victoria and Whistler, respectively. See data on the Figure 4 map for more details.

Design: Questions for key stakeholders to consider

1. What measurements are best suited for monitoring progress toward meeting the government’s ultimate goals for public transit?

2. Given that changes in the transport system and travel behaviour take time, have reasonable timelines been set to achieve targets and outcomes? Can the strategies developed to achieve objectives be sustained over time?

3. Do we fully understand the important factors that influence British Columbians’ satisfaction with transit services and their travel mode choices (this may differ by region and community)?

4. Which of these factors are within the control of BC Transit? The Ministry? Local governments?

5. Are the benefits greater than the costs of the option(s) being considered to change transportation behaviour?

6. If demand increases, as a result of policy disincentives to automobile use or other transit incentives or motivating factors, will the quantity, quality and affordability of transit services be sufficient to meet and sustain demand?

Looking Ahead

The main stakeholder groups are actively engaged in planning for the future of transit at the local level and provincial levels. The provincial government is in the process of addressing recommendations made in the three recent reports on BC Transit. Local governments are working with BC Transit on developing Transit Future Plans, as well as developing or implementing their Transportation Master Plans and Official Community Plans. Together, these plans set the vision for transportation and sustainability in their communities. BC Transit is working with all partners on performance reporting, long-term budgeting and other items related to recent report recommendations and their own strategic plan vision.

It is important that decision-makers continue to consider the long-term policy questions as they make plans and decisions in the short term, keeping in mind the vision for improved environmental, economic, and social sustainability in the transportation sector.

Our Office may follow up on the progress of the various stakeholders in the future and will follow up in 2014 on the recommendations in our December 2012 summary report on the performance audit of BC Transit’s ridership.

Questions for Key Stakeholders to Consider

Policy and Governance

1. Does the current governance model allow for the most efficient and effective allocation of roles and responsibilities to meet the long-term sustainable transportation goals?

2. How should the varying objectives for transit be reflected in legislation?

3. How should all of the various plans that relate to transit fit together?

4. When different transit objectives cannot be pursued simultaneously, how should they be prioritized?

5. Where does B.C. stand in relation to the evolving development of public transit in the Pacific Northwest, in Canada, and worldwide?

6. What collaboration is required from each partner to ensure effective implementation of transit plans?

7. How can transit and land use planning processes effectively be integrated?

8. How are transit goals integrated into the overall vision for transportation in B.C.?

9. What are the potential impacts of other government initiatives and activities on the achievement of transit objectives? If these may have a negative impact, how can conflicting priorities be reconciled?

10. What capacity does each partner require (people, skills, knowledge, and resources) to deliver their required contributions and what organizational structure is most appropriate?

Funding

1. What is the most appropriate funding model for BC Transit to meet long-term transit goals and objectives?

2. Are existing funding commitments and sources sustainable given the long-term objectives and timeframes targeted?

3. What long-term funding commitments are required to facilitate effective and efficient long-term planning?

4. What is the capacity of the transit supply industry to produce additional buses or respond to demand for different types of buses to meet transit expansion plans?

5. How can transit funding sources be designed to achieve the greatest positive influence on transportation behaviour?

Design

1. What measurements are best suited for monitoring progress toward meeting the government’s ultimate goals for public transit?

2. Given that changes in the transport system and travel behaviour take time, have reasonable timelines been set to achieve targets and outcomes? Can the strategies developed to achieve objectives be sustained over time?

3. Do we fully understand the important factors that influence British Columbians’ satisfaction with transit services and their travel mode choices (this may differ by region and community)?

4. Which of these factors are within the control of BC Transit? The Ministry? Local governments?

5. Are the benefits greater than the costs of the option(s) being considered to change transportation behaviour?

6. If demand increases, as a result of policy disincentives to automobile use or other transit incentives or motivating factors, will the quantity, quality and affordability of transit services be sufficient to meet and sustain demand?