Every seat on every board
One mark per board member, coloured by category. The whole dataset, before any averaging.
A fourth region on Day's chart
The five Latin American agencies placed alongside Day's sixteen, same five categories, same measure — plus Chicago's new NITA board, the comparison that prompted the question. Hover any segment for the exact figure. Note the dates: the rows researched here are August 2026, Day's are March.
Asia5 agencies · Day · Mar 2026
Europe4 agencies · Day · Mar 2026
United States7 agencies · Day · Mar 2026
Latin America5 agencies · this research · Aug 2026
Chicago1 agency · this research · Aug 2026
Every row carries its own date, and they are not all the same date. The sixteen Asian, European and US rows are Richard Day's work, as of March 2026, computed from the member-level list he published alongside “Put real experts in charge of transit” (A City That Works, March 2026) — 222 board members — rather than read off his chart image. They have not been re-verified here.
His four Chicago rows describe a system that has since been reorganised. The RTA is being wound up and replaced by NITA, and the CTA, Metra and Pace boards were re-appointed in July and August 2026. Those four rows are kept here as Day published them, as the pre-reform baseline — not as a description of who governs Chicago transit today. New CTA, Metra and Pace rows are deliberately not published: more service-board appointments were still outstanding at the time of writing, and a board that cannot be confirmed to its full seat list does not get a row on this site.
The five Latin American rows and the NITA row are computed from the member records on this site and are current as of 27 August 2026. Two of Day's rows sum to 99% or 101% from rounding; one figure differs from his published chart, where LTA Singapore's other-management share is 76% in his data (13 of 17 seats) but labelled 77%. Chart rebuilt, not reproduced.
What the data shows
Across 42 Latin American members, five agencies, five countries and two rounds of research five months apart, not one seat belongs to a rider advocate or community organisation. In Day's US sample the same category reaches 50%. Chicago's new NITA board, counted separately below, has one.
Finance people, lawyers, career civil servants and non-transit engineers. Higher than any single region in Day's dataset, and the profile held steady even as the boards themselves turned over.
6 of 42 members. Three of those six rest on judgment calls that could have gone the other way — under the stricter reading this figure is 7%, which is why it is published with its workings.
Chicago's new regional board replaced the RTA in 2026. Under the classification rules used throughout this site, two of its twenty directors have transit operations experience, and only one of those is unambiguous. Under Richard Day's looser applied practice the figure is five. Both readings are published, because the difference is the whole argument.
Santiago replaced its entire board; Medellín, São Paulo and Buenos Aires each replaced or lost members. The aggregate composition barely moved, which suggests structure rather than appointments determines who governs transit.
The evidence for all of this is the member-by-member table, and the reasoning is in the full analysis.