Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I find it very interesting how 3 of the largest gainers......Cleveland, Nashville, and KC are all cities that have not expanded/built LRT of streetcars but rather have implemented Bus Rapid Transit.
|
^ it is interesting. cleveland ridership grew all around, heavy rail, light rail and bus, but bus ridership the least. this is all good news for rta.
cle rta is doing a lot of rail station rehab or rebuilding. there is some talk of moving toward smartcard technology, but no rail expansion. all rta talks about along those lines is of more brt. the people, if not rta, used to talk about closing a rail loop around the downtown core, but you don't hear anything about that lately as far as a major project. if anything suburban extensions of rail lines will happen first, there have been several solid plans. we'll see. reality is rta is cash-strapped and most intent on running a good transit system, which they do. |
In places like Cleveland—not really growing and certainly not having capacity issues on their existing network—system maintenance is definitely the big priority.
The big reason Milwaukee’s been dropping ridership over the last decade, even in the face of increasing development in dense areas and a national trend towards higher ridership, is because MCTS hasn’t been given the resources to keep their basic bus services running at decent frequencies. |
Quote:
So my guess is... in the 2011 and earlier report, they assumed the number reported by STM as linked trips. But in 2012 and newer report, they changed the assumption to unlinked trips (boardings). So the question is, is the 405 millions reported by STM really linked or unlinked? Comparing to other agencies, I'm leaning toward unlinked:
But then, STM fare is slightly cheaper than TTC and TransLink. I doubt the small difference would yield such a large margin in revenue though.. |
Quote:
The Montreal ridership never made sense compared to Toronto. Montreal and Toronto have similar subways (69 km vs 72 km; 68 stations vs 64 stations; 759 17-m long cars compared to 678 22.9-m long cars). If anything Toronto had more capacity given the cars are 35% longer and 25% wider, making the car almost 70% bigger. Peak frequencies are similar, Toronto's off-peak frequencies are lower (more frequent - never more than a 6-min scheduled wait). Anecdotally Toronto subway trains always seem busier on weekends and evenings ... and I've seldom seen Montreal trains packed as tightly in rush-hour as Toronto (or at least leaving as many people behind). So how could Montreal have slightly higher subway ridership? The new numbers make a lot more sense to me. |
The individual Toronto cars are larger, but Montreal trains are longer since on the three busiest lines it has 9 car trains, and Toronto typically has 6 car trains (which it can't exceed due to platform length). So it's potential capacity really isn't higher.
|
Quote:
A 6-car train in Toronto is about 138 metres long, compared to a 9-car train in Montreal that is about 152 metres long. That's only 10% longer trains in Montreal. The Toronto trains however are 25% wider. The area of a 6-car train in Toronto is 13.7% more than a 9-car train in Montreal. With Montreal's 759 cars you can only make 84 trains compared to the 113 trains you can make with Toronto's 678 cars. To make a short story long. Toronto trains each have 14% more capacity, and Toronto has 34% more trains. The entire Toronto fleet has 52% more capacity than Montreal's. So again, it's not surprising that the Toronto subway can move a lot more people than the Montreal subway at peak periods. And at off-peak periods, the Toronto trains are more frequent (and more crowded in my experience). |
Total capacity is also dependent on things like the seating layout and train configuration (number and size of control cabins, etc.) You cannot just take the length of the train, divide it by the number of cars, and then assume that the result is the length of the passenger space in each car.
As a result, the difference in their capacities are nowhere near what such "area" calculations would imply. Based on this page, the new trains will have a capacity of about 1586 people when you include both sitting and standing, and the TTC and local media have widely quoted the new trains will have 10% more capacity than the current H series, meaning that the H series had a capacity of about 1442 people per train. A 9 car Montreal metro train has a total combined sitting/standing capacity of 1440 people. As far as the total number of trains, you can't directly translate the number of trains the agency owns into the number of trains it has in revenue service at any given time. They all have different reliability records and require varying amounts of maintenance time. Despite their age, the Montreal metro cars are known for being unusually reliable. And neither agency can put more trains into service than its network can support regardless of how many it has available. So all in all, Toronto may have very slightly higher capacity, but there just isn't a big difference. What I suspect allows Montreal to have such high ridership is that the ridership is more evenly distributed across the network. In Toronto, the YUS line gets about 75% of ridership meaning it is often overcrowded with packed trains leaving people waiting during rush hour, yet underutilized capacity on other parts of the system. The ridership in Montreal is more consistent across the lines. |
Quote:
APTA reports that Toronto has nearly double the subway ridership as Toronto. The capacity is clearly greater. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Quote:
Why do you say the YUS lines gets 75% of the ridership? According to the latest report, of the 3 lines, YUS has 56% of the ridership ... and 47% of the stations. Other than the 5-station Sheppard line, the entire network seems quite well used to me ... and I see a lot more overpacked trains on Saturday in Toronto than I do in Montreal, even though they are more frequent in Toronto on Saturdays. |
Quote:
The same is the case for Montreal where it can only run a 9 car train (which carries the same number of passengers as Toronto's 6 car trains) at about the same interval. So there is not a huge difference in capacity. Quote:
Quote:
The point that I'm trying to make is a rather simple one. The Toronto Subway and the Montreal Metro are quite similar in terms of capacity. Quote:
|
Quote:
If at rush hour, both systems have virtually all their fleet in use, and a similar spare ratio, then the system which has a much higher capacity fleet, has a higher capacity Quote:
Quote:
I've said for years that the reports don't make sense, as even if the trains are a similar capacity, and the system is a similar length - Toronto trains are more frequent, and packed to capacity at peak ... and quite full off-peak ... so how can Montreal have higher ridership? The answer clearly is that now they've fixed the numbers, that the Toronto subway carries about 75% more people than the Montreal subway. Though to tell the truth, the more I dig, the more I get the impression while the 2011 reports seemed to be overstating Montreal compared to Toronto, the 2012 reports seem to be understating Montreal compared to Toronto. Total passenger trips (linked) for Toronto is about 25% higher than Montreal according to STM and TTC annual reports ... and revenue numbers suggest similar. And yet the APTA numbers now suggest that Montreal is much less ... unless Toronto riders make significantly more transfers than in Montreal ... Quote:
However, the green line and orange line in Montreal are only 20 trains per hour in AM peak (at pm peak green is 15 trains per hour and orange is 20) - in Toronto the YUS and BD are both over 25 trains per hour in AM peak and are both about 24 trains per hour in PM peak. Off-peak Toronto is never worse than 12 trains per hour on YUS and BD (and about 11 on Sheppard), with service for about 19.5 hours per day. In Montreal service gets as low 6 trains per hour (and even a bit worse near closing) with about 19 hours a day of service. With more frequent trains, Toronto has a higher capacity both at peak and off-peak. And the greater capacity of the Toronto fleet as a whole reflects that. As does Toronto's higher ridership numbers. Though I've stressed the differences ... the more closely you look, just how similar Montreal and Toronto are is amazing. Particularly if you ignore Toronto's streetcars and ICTS! |
Yes, the train frequency is where the only notable difference since as previous links show, as each train has a virtually identical crush load capacity with their current seating configuration (1442 people in Toronto vs 1440 people in Montreal). As I recall it was just in the last year or two that Toronto upgraded their signaling to allow frequencies as low as every 90 seconds, while in Montreal the minimum is 120 seconds.
So Toronto definitely does having slightly higher potential capacity, but that was never something I was denying. I was making the case that there is not a significant difference, when some people seem to assume there is a huge difference based on Montreal's smaller cars (which are basically smaller than many LRT vehicles). What makes me wonder is how systems like Prague and Sao Paulo pack in as many riders as they do. It really boggles the mind... |
Quote:
While I'm not sure that the two crush numbers are strictly comparable (how crushed is crushed ... the numbers I keep seeing for 30-metre long 2.65-m wide LRT cars seem to vary dramatically from report to report), there are similarities. Quote:
|
Calgary is really quite stellar.
Calgary transit only serves 1.1 million but gets ridership of 523,000/day...........higher than many city several times it's size and more than 10 times as much as many equivalent sized US cities. Calgary is proof that proper planning and good transit can result in very high ridership number even in relatively new and very wealthy cities. |
i haven't seen any posts about the 4Q 2012 report.
the data in this period for the northeast is greatly distorted by sandy. but for areas untouched by the storm, the numbers are pretty incredible. http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf some highlights: los angeles metro rail (heavy rail) +13.82% 4Q, +3.70% YTD los angeles metro rail (light rail) +33.62% 4Q, +18.46% YTD :o bay area rapid transit (heavy rail) +8.86% 4Q, +7.78% YTD caltrain (commuter rail) +14.92% 4Q, +12.98% YTD phoenix valley metro rail (light rail) +12.02% 4Q, +6.69% YTD dallas area rapid transit (light rail) +22.66% 4Q, +20.75% YTD :o it's also interesting to note that in los angeles, where rail extensions are obviously picking up tens of thousands of new trips, bus ridership isn't down at all. and some of the biggest numeric gains in existing rail systems occurred where no new extensions have recently been built (e.g. bart, with almost 40,000 new trips a day - the equivalent of houston's ENTIRE light rail system!) |
APTA 4th Quarter 2012
Average Weekday Ridership for US Heavy-Rail Systems: 01. New York - 8,373,100 02. Washington - 901,300 03. Chicago - 728,800 04. Boston - 530,200 05. San Francisco - 418,700 06. Philadelphia - 339,700 07. Atlanta - 217,600 08. Jersey City (PATH) - 180,400 09. Los Angeles - 158,200 10. Miami - 69,100 11. Baltimore - 50,100 12. Lindenwold (PATCO) - 36,900 13. Staten Island Railway - 16,000 xx. Cleveland - NA |
APTA 4th Quarter Report
Top 20 US Light Rail Systems by Average Weekday Ridership: 01. Boston - 222,500 02. Los Angeles - 203,400 03. San Francisco - 160,100 04. Portland - 115,400 05. Philadelphia - 113,900 06. Dallas - 103,100 07. San Diego - 87,700 08. Denver - 65,300 09. Salt Lake City - 60,600 10. St. Louis - 52,500 11. Sacramento - 49,600 12. Phoenix - 46,000 13. Houston - 37,400 14. San Jose - 33,800 15. Minneapolis - 31,500 16. Seattle - 29,800 17. Baltimore - 29,200 18. Pittsburgh - 27,600 19. Buffalo - 19,900 20. Charlotte - 14,800 |
I noticed a few of the Canadian numbers are quite inaccurate (i.e too low) since the agencies accidently reported linked trips (the Canadian standard) instead of unlinked trips (the US standard).
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.