Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

A Before and After Study on a new Subway line in North York, Ontario
Census Assignment for PLAN 514 Introduction Public transit is more than just transportation; it is a central part of a citys functionality. Moreover, it can provide an urban identity and improve public health. As cities grow, urbanize and become more congested; the need for an adequate public transit system becomes even more salient. Over the past decade, oil prices have been volatile surging beyond one dollar per litre in Canada. As gas prices started to rise in the mid 2000s, cities like Toronto were already constructing new public transit infrastructure to accommodate the citys growing population. In fact, even earlier in the late 1990s, the Toronto Transit Commission was building the Sheppard subway line which became operational in 2002 (Tossell, 2007). The Sheppard subway line is located in north end of the city in North York. With population growth, rising gas prices and my interest in public transit, I was interested in doing a closer examination of the Sheppard subway line to understand the impact of public transit provision on neighbourhoods. Methodology Using census data from 2001 and 2006, I explore the mode of transportation to work category used by the Canadian Census Analyzer and compare it with median income across the 6 census tracts. The 6 census tracts are located in North York, Ontario; CT 274.01, 300, 303, 304.01, 305.02 and 322. Three of the census tracts (300, 303 and 305.02) are located near the Sheppard subway line; I classify them as Group A. The other three census tracts (274.01, 304.01 and 322) are located farther away from the Sheppard subway line but are still in the North York area; they are classified as Group B. I include three census tracts not located on the Sheppard subway line to compare the public transit data with the census tracts that are located closer to the line to see if there was a difference in public transit trips to work over the five-year period. Therefore, I used the construction of the Sheppard subway line as an intervention to show differences in public transit trips to work between the census tracts over time. I strategically used the 2001 and 2006 census years because the subway line was constructed in 2002. Moreover, I wanted to know if lower and higher median income census tracts alike used public transit as a mode of transport to work. To carry out the analysis, I use bar graphs, scatter plots with regression to show relationships between unemployment, median income and public transit, a frequency table for median income groups among census tracts and an interval estimate of the population mean. I used Referenced Maps provided by Statistics Canada to inquire about the geographic location of the census tracts and to determine their distance from the Sheppard line. Therefore, deciding which census tracts were close to and away from the Sheppard line was based on my own judgment. This may be seen as a subjective but there is currently no feature provided by Statistics Canada that indicates which census tracts are in close proximity to public transit i.e. bus stops, subway stations and/or light rail. Figure 1 is a map that plots the census tracts in geographic proximity to the Sheppard line. I used the both the Census Data Analyzer and the Statistics Canada Census Tract Profiles to retrieve my data.

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

Figure 1. Map of Six Census Tracts in North York, Ontario

322 303 300

305.02 274.01 304.01

Sheppard Subway Line

Figure 2. Median Income and Public Transit

On the Sheppard Line Yes No Yes Yes No No Population 2001 Population 2006 Public Median Median transit to income ($) income ($) work 2001 2006 (2001) 345 18,062 18,386 20,477 19,202 585 34,528 37,246 245 29,515 315 26,897 30140 33,368 625 19374 18,529 740 Public 2001 to 2006 transit to public transit work change (%) (2006) 1,125 226 135 1,375 573 1650 1,345 326 0 625 24 915

Census tract 303 322 300 305.02 274.01 304.01

5,571 7,661 2,917 4,627 5,106 4,887

5,562 7,616 8,360 7,670 4,925 4,768

What does the data tell you about your topic? The data indicates that all census tracts excluding CT 274.01 see an overall increase in public transit as a mode of transport to work from 2001 to 2006. Group A showed a significant increase in public transit
2

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

trips between the 2001 and 2006 census years. In spite of the median income disparity between CT 305.02 and CT 303, income did not seem to be a significant factor in public transit trips to work as both census tracts saw increases of 326 percent and 226 percent respectively. This may suggest that the new Sheppard line helped improve public transit rates overall due to better access and/or higher frequency of public transit service. However, the census does have limitations which I discuss in subsequent paragraphs. CT 300, with a comparably high median income to CT 305.02, also witnessed a large increase in public transit as mode of transport to work. CT 322 is located away from the Sheppard line and saw an increase of 135% from 2001 to 2006. CT 304.01 also saw an increase of 24% from 2001 to 2006. These increases are not as high as the census tracts located near the Sheppard subway line but are still noteworthy and may suggest that public transit trips to work increased as a whole from 2001 to 2006 in North York. Figure 3. Public Transit Trips to Work from 2001 to 2006 between 6 Census Tracts

I used figure 3 to illustrate the overall increases in public trips and to show the differences between the census tracts close to the Sheppard line and those farther from it. The census tracts not located on the newly constructed Sheppard line showed differences in public transit rates. The wealthiest census tract in this group, CT 274.01, had 625 public transit trips in 2001 and 625 trips in 2006 showing no increase at all.

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

Figure 4. Difference between 2001 and 2006 Transit Ridership and Median Income

Figure 4 indicates that notwithstanding income gains and losses between 2001 and 2006, public transit trips increased for all census tracts with the exception of CT 274. In 2001, Group A (303, 305.02 and 300), all with different median income levels had fewer public transit trips to work than Group B. In 2006, Group A surpassed Group B in public transit trips to work. The exception is CT 303, which only passed CT 304.01 and CT 274.01 in trips but not CT 322. In the 2006 census, the other two census tracts (305.02, 300) saw larger increases in public transit trips to work than the census tract 303. Could this suggest that the higher median income census tracts started using public transit more when the Sheppard subway line was constructed? It is hard to provide a definitive answer based on the limitations of the census. A more comprehensive study would have to be done to look at specific public transit modes such as the subway to ascertain if residents started using it more after 2002. Figure 5 . Unemployment levels and Public Transit Trips in 2001

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

Unemployment sample mean = 8.58 Standard Deviation = 1.71279499 Standard Error = 0.69924563

Public Transit trips sample mean = 475.8 Standard Deviation = 200.1 Standard Error = 81.6

R2 = 8%, therefore 8% of the variation in the dependent variable (y) can be explained by the independent variable (x). In 2001, there was a slight positive relationship between unemployment and public transit trips; a 1% increase in unemployment is equal to 7.3 public transit trips. Figure 6. Unemployment levels and Public Transit Trips in 2006

Unemployment sample mean = 7.66 Standard Deviation = 2.70752 Standard Error = 1.105341

Public Transit trips sample mean = 1172.5 Standard Deviation = 365.2636 Standard Error = 149.1182

R2 = 23%, which means that the relationship between the dependent variable (y) and the independent variable (y) is 23% of the total variation. Put another way, approximately 23% of the variation in the response variable (unemployment rate) can be explained by the explanatory variable (public transit trips to work). In 2006, a drop in unemployment corresponds to an increase of 11.8 public transit trips. This might be explained by population increases in the census tracts or that more people starting taking public transit to work in 2006. I use scatter plots to simply show the relationship (negative and positive) between unemployment and public transit trips. Overall, the data I found shows that unemployment rates differ among census tracts between 2001 and 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, unemployment rates decreased for all census tracts except for CT 303 and CT 274.01. Despite increases in unemployment among CT 303 and CT 274.01, CT 303 saw a significant increase in public transit trips to work.

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

Figure 7. Median Income and Pubic Transit Trips for Torontos Census Tracts

In figure 7, I show a scatter plot with all of Torontos census tracts and exclude the six census tracts for my study. The rationale was to compare the data between the two. I calculated R (correlation) on excel and the output value was -0.12721. Therefore, there is a slight negative relationship between median income and public transit trips to work. R2 = 1.6% which means that the relationship between the dependent variable (median income) and the independent variable (public transit trips to work) is 1.6% of the total variation. This regression is important because it is consistent with the data I found for the six census tracts, that is, that there is a slight negative relationship between public transit trips to work and median income. This may suggest that both rich and poor alike use transit to get to work in Toronto. Confidence Interval In this study, my sample includes six census tracts. To do an interval estimate of the population mean, I used the Descriptive Statistics tool in Microsoft Excel 2007 displayed in figure 8. In 2006, the sample mean (point estimate) for the public transit trips to work category is 986. With a confidence interval of 95%, the margin of error is 376. Therefore, I am 95% confident that the mean public transit trip to work for the City of Toronto is between 610 and 1,392. The standard error is quite large (146) and would be smaller if my sample was increased. The small sample size makes the range much larger and it is difficult to be more certain.

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

Figure 8. Summary Statistics

Public transit to work (2006) Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Sum Count Confidence Level (95.0%) 985.8333333 146.3808769 1020 #N/A 358.5584564 128564.1667 -2.010499133 -0.2218118 845 530 1375 5915 6 376.284023

Figure 9. Frequency Table of Census Tract by Income Bracket

Census Tract 274 304.1 322 300 303 305.02 25,000-29,000 200 235 290 360 365 395 40,000-45,000 115 155 175 270 350 390 60,000 and over 195 320 945 1135 1175 1985

Figure 10. Breakdown of income by census tract

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

I use figure 10 to show the income composition of the census tracts. CT 305.02 has the highest number of people who earn over $60,000 per year. CT 303 and 300 have a comparable number of persons earning over $60,000. There is a large disparity in income between the other three tracts. In the $25,000$29,000 income bracket (below the poverty line), the census tracts have similar numbers of people who earn this amount. In the middle income bracket ($40,000-$45,000), there are insignificant differences between the census tracts. Overall, this graph is important because it shows the disparities in income among the selected census tracts. Therefore, it gives us a partial understanding of the diversity in income. Problems with using the Census The census data for this assignment gives one an idea of how public transit as a mode of transportation to work increased for 5 out of the 6 selected census tracts selected. There was a significant increase in public transit trips to work for census tracts located near the Sheppard subway line (Group A). Despite income differences among the 5 census tracts, people started using public transit more between 2001 and 2006 this could be due to the rising costs of gasoline, improvements in public transit service, shorter commuting times associated with public transit and more. There are some noteworthy limitations in using census data especially for this assignment. One, increases in public transit for CT 303 (the one close to the Sheppard subway line) does not mean that more residents from this neighbourhood started using the Sheppard subway line when it was constructed. The census does not tell us what types of public transit the residents use i.e. bus, light-rail or subway. It only shows the total number of public transit trips to work and offers other categories such as walking, cycling and driving. I did not use these categories because I was only interested in looking at the Sheppard subway line because it constitutes public transit. By contrast, new transit infrastructure such as a subway line could have an effect in increasing public transit trips to work. Subways may be seen as a faster, convenient and a more efficient mode of transit. Between 2001 and 2006, residents of CT 303 might have used buses as a mode of transport to work more frequently. If their jobs are located in the area, then many would not probably take the subway as a journey to work. However, I can also assume that bus availability stayed constant between 2001 and 2006 and this would therefore not affect increases in public transit trips to work. This poses a lot uncertainty in my analysis and raises questions that the census cannot immediately answer. Using census profiles are useful for understanding the socio-economic characteristics of a neighbourhood. While the census breaks down income earnings in groups such as $25,000- $29,000 and $60,000 and over, it does not directly tell us how many persons from these groups take public transit as mode of transportation. I would suspect that poorer residents take public transit to work in greater numbers than their wealthier counterparts; however, this is just based on the literature I have reviewed in previous projects. This sentiment was also disproved in the results from the study which suggested that higher and lower median income census tracts alike use public transit as a mode of transportation to work. This was shown using regression and bar graphs. Another problem with using the census is that census tracts are fairly large in geography. In my study, the census tracts that are in close proximity to the Sheppard subway line have populations between
8

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

5000-9000 people, some live closer to the subway, some live farther from it. Between 2001 and 2006, the census tracts located near the subway line saw large increases in population. There could be several reasons for this. One, the subway line alone was sufficient enough to persuade residents to move closer to it. Also, the construction of higher density housing such as condominiums could help explain increases in public transit trips. Further Discussion From 2001 to 2006, median income increased in census tracts 305.02 and 300, both of which are near the Sheppard subway line. Townhouses, newer homes and condominiums can attract wealthier citizens thereby pushing up the median income and public transit trips to work simply based on proximity to the subway line. This provides more housing options for people and could help explain why census tracts like CT 300 saw an increase in population by 5000 people between 2001 and 2006. I assume that more expensive housing brings wealthier citizens to the census tracts. Whether the new wealthy residents started taking public transit to work is not provided by the census. This is just an assumption however; a closer examination of this data should be done for the 2011 census. Even within the census tracts there can be differences in who takes public transit simply based on distance. I suspect that those living closer might feel more inclined to walk to the station and take the train, those who live farther might see this as an inconvenience and may take their car as a mode of transport to work. This is a significant limitation with using the census and may only give us a partial idea of why transit rates increased from 2001 to 2006. Conclusion Overall, this study provides evidence that public transit trips to work increased as a whole from 2001 to 2006 for 5 out of the 6 selected census tracts in North York, Ontario. Data from the Canadian Census Analyzer and Statistics Canada allowed the researcher to better understand the differences between the census tracts located near the Sheppard subway line (Group A), and the tracts located away from the line (Group B). While there was an overall increase in public transit from 2001 to 2006, Group A saw larger increases than Group B. This may be attributed to closer access to the Sheppard subway line, but as noted, I cannot provide a correlation based on the data I have found. Median income differences did not appear to be a significant barrier in using public transit to work. The six census tracts had different median income levels and in some cases, comparable rates in public transit use. Unemployment was also analyzed with public transit trips and the graphs show that as unemployment decreases, public transit trips increase. This may seem like an obvious finding because more people are going to work, but nonetheless points to an increase in public transit. A future study could be done to look at housing construction on the Sheppard line and compare public transit data with those away from the line. This for example, could show or not show how a subway line might attract more housing and residents and thus increase ridership as a result.

Timothy Shah October 18, 2010

References Canadian Census Analyzer. (2001). 2001 Census of Toronto: Profile of Census Tracts. Computing in the Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Toronto. Accessed online: http://datacentre.chass.utoronto.ca/census/2001_ct_lab.html Canadian Census Analyzer. (2006). 2006 Census of Toronto: Profile of Census Tracts. Computing in the Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Toronto. Accessed online: http://datacentre.chass.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/census/2006/displayCensusCT.cgi?c=lab Statistics Canada. (2006). 2006 Census of Toronto. Statistics Canada, Ottawa. Accessed online: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-597/index.cfm?lang=E Tossell, I. (2007, November 24). Still a subway to nowhere? The Toronto Star. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thestar.com/living/article/278383

10