The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Doady

The way Vancouver is going now, I think they will surpass Toronto in transit ridership in few decades. Maybe even Ottawa too. Montreal is already better. Sad what is happening in Toronto now.

You make it sound like Rob Ford will be Mayor Forever.

1 year and a bit at the most.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Doady

The way Vancouver is going now, I think they will surpass Toronto in transit ridership in few decades. Maybe even Ottawa too. Montreal is already better. Sad what is happening in Toronto now.

Sad that ridership is continuing to grow and the subway/LRT system is continuing to expand (despite the Rob Ford-related setbacks)?

Montreal does not have higher transit ridership than Toronto, and it would be nigh impossible for Vancouver's ridership to surpass either of the above two - not with current ridership growth & transit expansion levels, at least. For Ottawa to do so would be outright impossible (with its current population).

[Chadillaccc]

Yeah dude... Calgary has a higher ridership than Ottawa by leaps and bounds even... and we're light years from approaching Toronto's ridership, as is Vancouver. The best we can hope for in the next 50 years is matching Vancouver... the best Vancouver could probably hope for in the next 50 years is coming even into comparison with Montreal or Toronto's ridership, as both cities have substantially higher ridership already.

Montreal Subway: 1 241 000 riders per weekday
Toronto Subway: 1 011 700
Vancouver Skytrain: 396 500
Calgary Ctrain: 290 000

Those are the numbers for 2012. MonkeyRonin must have been looking at the numbers for TTC as a whole, which is 2.76 million riders per weekday. However, the subway is only used by 1.01 million of those people.

[Doady]

I was referring to per capita ridership. STM is higher than TTC. OC Transpo is higher than Calgary Transit.

[Chadillaccc]

Probably should have made that clear, as most people use raw numbers when referring to transit.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Probably should have made that clear, as most people use raw numbers when referring to transit.

If people don't find more it sensible to standardize ridership numbers when comparing transit systems between cities with vastly different population totals, then that's their fault not mine. I figured it would be obvious that when said Ottawa's transit ridership could surpass the TTC, I didn't mean that OC Transpo's ridership could increase by 500%.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Doady

I was referring to per capita ridership. STM is higher than TTC. OC Transpo is higher than Calgary Transit.

Debatable. While the TTC (daily ridership of 2.7 million) exclusively serves the city of Toronto (2.7 million people), the STM (daily ridership of 2.5 million) serves the entirety of Montreal Island + outlying islands (2 million), plus has some subway service into Laval (400,000) and Longueuil (230,000). And of course, that also doesn't include people using other transit systems within these (note that GO has both higher ridership and per capita ridership than AMT). Either way, the "per capita" ridership isn't too far off.

Going instead by the share of workers commuting by transit, 34% of people in the city of Montreal and 21% in the CMA commute by transit, compared to 34% in the city of Toronto and 22% in the CMA. Once again...basically the same.

Originally Posted by Doady

If people don't find more it sensible to standardize ridership numbers when comparing transit systems between cities with vastly different population totals, then that's their fault not mine. I figured it would be obvious that when said Ottawa's transit ridership could surpass the TTC, I didn't mean that OC Transpo's ridership could increase by 500%.

Use different terminology then. In the context it was used in, "transit ridership" would commonly be understood to refer to the number of people using it. "Modal share" would be more appropriate in what you're trying to express.

Using precise language is particularly important when coming from someone known for hyperbole and sarcasm, whereby normally "obvious" claims become...not so obvious.

[Innsertnamehere]

TTC has service in York region, though ridership from that is minimal.

[franktko]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Debatable. While the TTC (daily ridership of 2.7 million) exclusively serves the city of Toronto (2.7 million people), the STM (daily ridership of 2.5 million) serves the entirety of Montreal Island + outlying islands (2 million), plus has some subway service into Laval (400,000) and Longueuil (230,000).

Not sure what are those outlying islands with 2M people...? STM is strictly on the Montreal Island with, like you said, subway stations in Laval and Longueuil. Both these cities have their own public transport. The Longueuil station doesn't provide any transport within Longueuil - it's just taking those riders into the city which I'm sure it's happening in Toronto (i.e. Mississauga bus routes must have tons of routes going into TTC). And those subway stations are different than the rest; with a STM monthly pass, you can go to Laval and Longueuil but you can't board the subway in those cities to come back - you have to pay extra.

Anyway, here is a cool video of a day at the STM:

• Video Link

[Symz]

Just to pick everyone's brains on regional transit. I read a local CBC article talking about Windsor-Essex politicians are pressing higher levels of government for transit infrastructure dollars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2013/08/20/wdr-ottawa-conference.html

In Windsor-Essex we essentially have no regional transit. Surrounding Windsor are two adjacent towns. They're so close you can't tell where Windsor stops and the towns begin. (There are also other towns that are just a little farther out). The odd part is if you live in these adjacent towns you can't even take a bus into Windsor because we have no regional agreement. The town doesn't want Transit Windsor to come into their town and so they came up with their own little bus which was called 'the bus to nowhere' because it didn't link up with the bus system in Windsor. The other town doesn't even have it's own little bus. Windsor doesn't want the towns bus to step into their transit territory. So the point is if you live in these towns which basically seem like a part of Windsor you can't even rely on public transportation to get INTO town, nor can you take a transit Windsor bus into these towns. We're still dominated by cars down here which I think hurts us in some ways.

So what I'm wondering is, do you guys think that by strengthening transit in the area and actually providing some sort of regional transit would it boost the slow growth in this area or is it the other way around, build the regional transit because of growth?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Doady

The way Vancouver is going now, I think they will surpass Toronto in transit ridership in few decades. Maybe even Ottawa too. Montreal is already better. Sad what is happening in Toronto now.

As impresive as Vancouver is racking up the kms, there is a huge difference between it and the subways of Toronto. Capacity and station distances are more representative of a commuter rail (S BAhn) than a metro; a hybrid between subway and Go.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Symz

Just to pick everyone's brains on regional transit. I read a local CBC article talking about Windsor-Essex politicians are pressing higher levels of government for transit infrastructure dollars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2013/08/20/wdr-ottawa-conference.html

In Windsor-Essex we essentially have no regional transit. Surrounding Windsor are two adjacent towns. They're so close you can't tell where Windsor stops and the towns begin. (There are also other towns that are just a little farther out). The odd part is if you live in these adjacent towns you can't even take a bus into Windsor because we have no regional agreement. The town doesn't want Transit Windsor to come into their town and so they came up with their own little bus which was called 'the bus to nowhere' because it didn't link up with the bus system in Windsor. The other town doesn't even have it's own little bus. Windsor doesn't want the towns bus to step into their transit territory. So the point is if you live in these towns which basically seem like a part of Windsor you can't even rely on public transportation to get INTO town, nor can you take a transit Windsor bus into these towns. We're still dominated by cars down here which I think hurts us in some ways.

So what I'm wondering is, do you guys think that by strengthening transit in the area and actually providing some sort of regional transit would it boost the slow growth in this area or is it the other way around, build the regional transit because of growth?

We have a similar thing in Ottawa. CN wants to rip out its rails running from Ottawa north to a few towns with a dwindling economy because the route is no longer profitable (and they want to ship the rails to Alberta to cash in on the oil industry). These towns are fighting to keep the rails because they think they will boost their economy (with new industrial business, touristic opportunities and commuter rail). Those rails obviously haven't helped in recent history partly because they didn't move on these ideas when they had the infrastructure.

Anyway, back to answering your question; I'm no expert, especially not on the Windsor area (all I see is Detroit's fall from grace and Windsor keeping its head above water) but usually, as far as I know, transit or highways/better road connections for that matter, between small towns and big cities result in suburban sprawl i.e. those towns will grow into suburbs.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by franktko

Not sure what are those outlying islands with 2M people...?

Nuns' Island, St. Helen's Island, Dorval Island, Île Bizard, etc (basically the ones that are part of the city of Montreal but aren't part of the Island).

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Symz

Just to pick everyone's brains on regional transit. I read a local CBC article talking about Windsor-Essex politicians are pressing higher levels of government for transit infrastructure dollars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2013/08/20/wdr-ottawa-conference.html

In Windsor-Essex we essentially have no regional transit. Surrounding Windsor are two adjacent towns. They're so close you can't tell where Windsor stops and the towns begin. (There are also other towns that are just a little farther out). The odd part is if you live in these adjacent towns you can't even take a bus into Windsor because we have no regional agreement. The town doesn't want Transit Windsor to come into their town and so they came up with their own little bus which was called 'the bus to nowhere' because it didn't link up with the bus system in Windsor. The other town doesn't even have it's own little bus. Windsor doesn't want the towns bus to step into their transit territory. So the point is if you live in these towns which basically seem like a part of Windsor you can't even rely on public transportation to get INTO town, nor can you take a transit Windsor bus into these towns. We're still dominated by cars down here which I think hurts us in some ways.

So what I'm wondering is, do you guys think that by strengthening transit in the area and actually providing some sort of regional transit would it boost the slow growth in this area or is it the other way around, build the regional transit because of growth?

I have a feeling this spring budget will include the Toronto Transit tax I am sure you have heard about, as well as an option for other regions to "opt in" on the taxes to provide funding to their region. I have a feeling that Ottawa will do it to fund their Western LRT extension, and places like London and Windsor might use it as well.

also, I seriously doubt Vancouver will surpass Toronto ridership. The TTC alone handled over 500 million trips last year, without including the surrounding GTA transit agencies and GO.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

As impresive as Vancouver is racking up the kms, there is a huge difference between it and the subways of Toronto. Capacity and station distances are more representative of a commuter rail (S BAhn) than a metro; a hybrid between subway and Go.

Your post prompted me to look up some info on Go. The frequency for Go is between 20 - 30 mins, with station spacing at around 7km (if my calculations are correct). I'm not sure of the capacity of the Go system, but I know that Skytrain has a capacity of 25 700 pphpd, and station spacing of 1.5 km vs 1 km for TTC subway. Berlin s-bahn has 2km station spacing. Headways for Skytrain are at 90s which obviously Go could not match. I'm not even sure if TTC subway could ever match that.

Station spacing for Skytrain is a little longer than the usual metro system, but I would say our system has much more metro characteristics than commuter rail characteristics. Maybe more of an S-Bahn/Subway hybrid.

[Innsertnamehere]

spacing for the skytrain is honestly 90s? even the Yonge Subway doesn't run at that frequency. Are you sure that isn't just the absolute maximum the system can handle?

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by logan5

Your post prompted me to look up some info on Go. The frequency for Go is between 20 - 30 mins, with station spacing at around 7km (if my calculations are correct). I'm not sure of the capacity of the Go system, but I know that Skytrain has a capacity of 25 700 pphpd, and station spacing of 1.5 km vs 1 km for TTC subway. Berlin s-bahn has 2km station spacing. Headways for Skytrain are at 90s which obviously Go could not match. I'm not even sure if TTC subway could ever match that.

Station spacing for Skytrain is a little longer than the usual metro system, but I would say our system has much more metro characteristics than commuter rail characteristics. Maybe more of an S-Bahn/Subway hybrid.

Someone said the same thing about the Ctrain as a way to belittle the fact that we have higher average speeds than a regular grade-separated metro. They said our station distances are actually between 1.5 and 2 km on average... I think without actually having done any research before saying that. Overall, with 53 km of track and 43 stations, our average station spacing is only 1.2 km. With a track length of 68 km and 47 stations, Vancouver's station spacing is (again, on average) only 1.4 km. They're both just well-managed systems with fast speeds. Doesn't make metro any worse...

I don't really see why some people try to equate them to commuter rail systems when they're significantly faster with much shorter headways. I can kind of get how someone could equate the Ctrain with commuter rail, a bit, but not Skytrain. Skytrain is the most awesome RT system I've ever been on.


Edit: and just a bit more to add about headways... 90 seconds is insanely quick. I think they use that during rush hour, right? CTrain's quickest is 120 seconds right now. (could be 124, could be 130, all I know is, it says "2 Minutes" on the digital screen between trains, don't freak out at me for saying 120 seconds please.)

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

spacing for the skytrain is honestly 90s? even the Yonge Subway doesn't run at that frequency. Are you sure that isn't just the absolute maximum the system can handle?

According to Translink, the peak frequency on the Expo & Millenium lines is 2 minutes, while the longest frequency is 20 minutes on the Canada line's 2 branches in the evenings.

http://tripplanning.translink.ca/hiwire?.a=iScheduleLookupSearch&LineName=999&LineAbbr=999

In Toronto, the highest frequency on the Yonge line is 2 minutes and 21 seconds, though the new signaling being installed will be able to reduce frequencies to 1 minute 45 seconds.

http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Service_Summary_2013_01_06.pdf

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

spacing for the skytrain is honestly 90s? even the Yonge Subway doesn't run at that frequency. Are you sure that isn't just the absolute maximum the system can handle?

I think it probably is the max it can handle. Light Metro and LRT are known for their capacity to run at very high, higher than classic heavy rail subways, frequency.

Talking about distance between stations and frequencies or comparing a metro to commuter rail, I think of BART in San Francisco; it acts as high frequency subway with short distances between stations in San Fran and as a lower frequency commuter rail with wide gaps between stations in the burbs. The interlining lines are key to this affect.

The ultimate plan for the Ottawa system when it reaches the suburbs will be similar; multiple lines going through old Ottawa with single lines and long distances between stations in the suburbs.

[Chadillaccc]

That plan for Ottawa looks awesome.