The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Skygazer

Downtown Vancouver is also fairly underserved by rapid transit compared to downtown Toronto and Montreal... the SkyTrain is incredibly useful for getting in and out of the downtown core, but not so much for actually travelling within it.

I'm not sure about incredibly useful. Along the Millennium Line you have to transfer to get downtown, and there is a single point of failure along the Expo Line.

The consistent theme is that Canadian governments in recent decades have been timid and cheap when it comes to investing in infrastructure. The suburban projects cost less and are less risky so they are more likely to happen. Infrastructure development in Canada also tends to be as driven by political pressure as it is by cost/benefit analysis.

The saddest thing about the SkyTrain right now is that there aren't even enough cars to comfortably handle the traffic at rush hour. They are running two car trains along the Millennium Line that are standing room only and sometimes leave people at the platform out in suburbia somewhere. Despite having a fully automated system, frequencies are also relatively low for most of the day and the operating hours are limited.

And the Broadway corridor work to be completed circa 2025 is only expected to go to Arbutus! Another half measure. It doesn't need to be a bored tunnel all the way out to UBC but that is the destination of a large percentage of the traffic along the Broadway corridor.

Today there was a traffic jam on Highway 1 so it took over 1 hour to drive just under 20 km from Burnaby into Vancouver.

I think it would be good if Canadians got a little bit more upset about how awful their infrastructure is.

[Skygazer]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure about incredibly useful. Along the Millennium Line you have to transfer to get downtown, and there is a single point of failure along the Expo Line.

I live along the Expo Line and take it downtown most days and I've found it to be pretty reliable and convenient, personally... never felt the need to drive or bus downtown cause the SkyTrain works just fine for me. The Canada Line seems that way as well (and less prone to breakdowns than the Expo Line), though I agree that the Millenium Line is less appealing due to having to transfer, but once the Broadway extension is complete it will be a bit more convenient.

The saddest thing about the SkyTrain right now is that there aren't even enough cars to comfortably handle the traffic at rush hour. They are running two car trains along the Millennium Line that are standing room only and sometimes leave people at the platform out in suburbia somewhere.

Yeah, what's that about again? I remember it started when the Evergreen Extension opened late last year and I know there was a specific reason for it, but I can't remember what it was...

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it would be good if Canadians got a little bit more upset about how awful their infrastructure is.

This is very true. Canadians are incredibly complacent about the state of their infrastructure which may be near the bottom of the developed world.

In the US, policy wonks and editorialists are always concerned that their country's infrastructure is crumbling and in dire need of improvement or repair. But the US' transportation infrastructure - with some big exceptions like airport quality - is superior to Canada's. Their highway system is much more extensive, even accounting for population differences, and is generally in much better shape than ours. Their highways also seem to be built to a very high standard with features like HOV/HOT lanes and intelligent traffic control that can only be found in a few places in Canada. Their mass transit may be badly used, but that's not to say that they're underdeveloped. Many American cities have very extensive rail systems - far more extensive than their Canadian counterparts. Part of the reason why they're underutilized is because the road system is so good.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

This is very true. Canadians are incredibly complacent about the state of their infrastructure which may be near the bottom of the developed world.

In the US, policy wonks and editorialists are always concerned that their country's infrastructure is crumbling and in dire need of improvement or repair. But the US' transportation infrastructure - with some big exceptions like airport quality - is superior to Canada's. Their highway system is much more extensive, even accounting for population differences, and is generally in much better shape than ours. Their highways also seem to be built to a very high standard with features like HOV/HOT lanes and intelligent traffic control that can only be found in a few places in Canada. Their mass transit may be badly used, but that's not to say that they're underdeveloped. Many American cities have very extensive rail systems - far more extensive than their Canadian counterparts. Part of the reason why they're underutilized is because the road system is so good.

They are underutilized because downtowns were gutted in the 60s and 70s leaving employment to shift to the suburbs where rapid transit is generally ineffective. As American cities start rebuilding their downtowns, there are new opportunities for using rapid transit. In most American cities, transit is significantly poorer than in Canada. Often, it is just a basic welfare service.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Many American cities have very extensive rail systems - far more extensive than their Canadian counterparts. Part of the reason why they're underutilized is because the road system is so good.

If you look at comparable transit routes in Canada and the US, in terms of passengers carried per day, the US ones are generally much better developed. I'm not necessarily saying it's the best use of money, but the US is full of boutique streetcars, monorails, aerial trams and whatnot while Canada has a lot of third world style routes served by buses packed to the gills.

The 99 along Broadway in Vancouver has weekday ridership comparable to LA's subway system. The only bus route that is busier is in Mexico.

I can only imagine how bad the Yonge Street subway is now. It was packed when I took it to work in 2005.

The problem isn't limited to big cities either. In Halifax I have watched things deteriorate for about 20 years. The city has grown at a moderate pace but there's been almost no significant infrastructure development. If there is any small planning snag or objection, a new project gets dropped or sits in limbo. Consequently, nothing is built except for things like bus terminals or reversing lanes. Transit ridership is flat because there is no benefit to adding more buses that sit in traffic. The resulting economic loss from people losing hours of time must be vastly larger than the money saved.

When considering where to work in Vancouver, a lot of people will only commute around their little corner of the metro area. My commute speed is about 15 km/h whether I drive or take transit (I live and work next to SkyTrain stations). Aside from the directly wasted time, people have to limit what jobs they take and it's hard for companies to find space that is convenient for all of their employees.

The only silver lining I guess is that this dysfunction encourages people who can afford it to live centrally. I think the downtown condo booms and transportation woes are pretty closely linked.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by someone123

I can only imagine how bad the Yonge Street subway is now. It was packed when I took it to work in 2005.

The new trains actually made that far better for a time. I'm not sure how the automatic train control switch is coming along.

[jmt18325]

The good news is, Canada now spends far more in infrastructure than we used to as a percentage of GDP - we're actually at almost double the level that the US was at for the last few years.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

They are underutilized because downtowns were gutted in the 60s and 70s leaving employment to shift to the suburbs where rapid transit is generally ineffective. As American cities start rebuilding their downtowns, there are new opportunities for using rapid transit. In most American cities, transit is significantly poorer than in Canada. Often, it is just a basic welfare service.

Why does the Greater Cleveland RTA have less ridership than MiWay (43.1 million boardings vs. 54.2 million boardings in 2016)? It doesn't seem like the problem of US transit ridership is about downtown vs. suburbs.

[WhipperSnapper]

I agree the US has more comprehensive higher order transit but, transit still sucks there. Feeder routes tend to be poorly developed with inaccessible stops no sidewalks and infrequent service. Maybe if a few more middle class white people used them.

[niwell]

Chicago is a great example of a place that has an excellent transit system on paper, but on the ground can be extremely lacking. And it has much better bus service than many (most?) large American cities. I tend to mostly use bike share and uber when I'm there. Been frustrated by infrequent service and delays on the El too many times.

[WhipperSnapper]

Oh, The El. Mind you the subway in Toronto is a helluva lot less reliable than 5 years ago. I don't think it's entirely equipment related either. (which is easier to resolve)

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by niwell

Chicago is a great example of a place that has an excellent transit system on paper, but on the ground can be extremely lacking. And it has much better bus service than many (most?) large American cities. I tend to mostly use bike share and uber when I'm there. Been frustrated by infrequent service and delays on the El too many times.

But that's the fault of the operational culture of US transit agencies, not their fixed infrastructure.

The Chicago El has 165 km of track, compared to the TTC subway/RT's 68 km.

If they wanted to, the CTA could more easily up their frequencies than the TTC could build 100 km of additional track.

(I also think the El vs. the TTC subway is not the best comparison, since the Chicago El is twice as old and Greater Chicago grows at half the rate of Greater Toronto, but that's another story).

[WhipperSnapper]

What would be the point of upping their frequencies without improving local feeder service first? It's not that easy to improve in most places either consider how auto centric suburbs are designed in the US.

You bring up age. It's not fair to compare length of trackage either considering the El is twice as old.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Skygazer

Yeah, what's that about again? I remember it started when the Evergreen Extension opened late last year and I know there was a specific reason for it, but I can't remember what it was...

The reason is just as simple as... there are not enough cars. They figure the Millennium Line had enough spare capacity to handle the addition Evergreen passengers with existing fleet, so no additional train were ordered for the Millennium Line.

Then they want to standardize trains to make Expo entirely 4-cars MkII/III or 6-cars MkI. This would lengthen the train and reduce the numbers of trainsets available. Thus the minimum headway increased from 1m48s to about 2m13s. And for the Millennium Line, they rather run 2-cars every 3m20s in peak hours, than 4-cars every 6m40s (1 in 3 trains, as before).

[niwell]

I do wonder how much frequencies on systems like the El could be realistically increased without substantial signalling or other infrastructure upgrades. I know the Loop sees frequent delays with current frequencies when trains are stopped at signals - this indicates the current infrastructure can't really handle much more. The underground lines may be more flexible though.

Certainly easier than 100km of extra track but maybe not as much as it may seem. Upgrades and reconstruction of the red line are in the $billions range for example: http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/obama-sends-cta-1-1-billion-for-red-line-improvements/

FWIW the red line is not only the most heavily used line, but the most heavily used by the middle class (choice transit riders). And isn't hampered by having to use the Loop downtown.

[Doady]

The people of the USA are extremely shallow and superficial people. You can see this in Trump as well, a man who does not care about details, and he is the perfect representation of the people down there. And you can see this disdain for details reflected in their transit systems as well.

US cities only care about having a great system on paper, but not in practice. It doesn't matter how functional the transit is, the US only cares about the form. Style over substance. Canada is the opposite, function over form, substance over style. Canadian transit systems aren't as flashy or sexy but they work a lot better.

In Canada, we aren't as focused with big infrastructure projects, and we aren't as concerned about how we look when we ride the bus. People in Canada are not so obsessed with image, and that's ultimately the reason why transit ridership in Canada is so high compared to the US.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by someone123

If you look at comparable transit routes in Canada and the US, in terms of passengers carried per day, the US ones are generally much better developed. I'm not necessarily saying it's the best use of money, but the US is full of boutique streetcars, monorails, aerial trams and whatnot while Canada has a lot of third world style routes served by buses packed to the gills.

The 99 along Broadway in Vancouver has weekday ridership comparable to LA's subway system. The only bus route that is busier is in Mexico.

I can only imagine how bad the Yonge Street subway is now. It was packed when I took it to work in 2005.

The problem isn't limited to big cities either. In Halifax I have watched things deteriorate for about 20 years. The city has grown at a moderate pace but there's been almost no significant infrastructure development. If there is any small planning snag or objection, a new project gets dropped or sits in limbo. Consequently, nothing is built except for things like bus terminals or reversing lanes. Transit ridership is flat because there is no benefit to adding more buses that sit in traffic. The resulting economic loss from people losing hours of time must be vastly larger than the money saved.

When considering where to work in Vancouver, a lot of people will only commute around their little corner of the metro area. My commute speed is about 15 km/h whether I drive or take transit (I live and work next to SkyTrain stations). Aside from the directly wasted time, people have to limit what jobs they take and it's hard for companies to find space that is convenient for all of their employees.

The only silver lining I guess is that this dysfunction encourages people who can afford it to live centrally. I think the downtown condo booms and transportation woes are pretty closely linked.

When you compare for size of population, however, Canada beats US hands down. The percentage of people who take transit is generally way higher in Canadian cities than in American cities. Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Calgary all have a higher transit mode share than any American city other than New York. Even cities like Halifax and Windsor often have a higher transit mode share than most Sunbelt cities.

[hipster duck]

I'm not disputing that Canadians are more likely to take public transit.

I just don't think we should confuse higher ridership with better infrastructure. In a lot of urban Canada, it may be due to the fact that it is the best of several bad options. For example, transit is your best bet to get to Parkdale, but that doesn't mean it's an enjoyable experience. Driving is your best bet to get from Markham to Milton, but that doesn't mean it's an enjoyable experience, either.

A driver in Phoenix or a transit user in Zurich would be better off than both of our Toronto-area examples.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

When you compare for size of population, however, Canada beats US hands down. The percentage of people who take transit is generally way higher in Canadian cities than in American cities. Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Calgary all have a higher transit mode share than any American city other than New York. Even cities like Halifax and Windsor often have a higher transit mode share than most Sunbelt cities.

Actually, Halifax has a transit ridership per capita higher than Boston and only a bit lower than Washington or San Francisco.



Canadian cities are in a different world of transit ridership than their American counterparts, but it's also true that, if you look at the infrastructure or the funding, you wouldn't suspect it. Looking at LRT ridership per mile between the two countries, Canada's worst-performing line (Ottawa's single-tracked, semi-temporary O-Train) is still the 6th best out of 40. The only American cities to surpass it are San Francisco and Boston, and the other four are other Canadian cities. We can pat ourselves on the back for having such high ridership - it's definitely a good thing - but we should also be wondering why it is that Canadian cities have to wait for our transit to be bursting at the seams before we allow ourselves to invest in our infrastructure.

If Norfolk can build an LRT line carrying a paltry 5600 riders per weekday over 12 km, then surely Regina should be building a subway network!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I just don't think we should confuse higher ridership with better infrastructure. In a lot of urban Canada, it may be due to the fact that it is the best of several bad options. For example, transit is your best bet to get to Parkdale, but that doesn't mean it's an enjoyable experience. Driving is your best bet to get from Markham to Milton, but that doesn't mean it's an enjoyable experience, either.

I prefer transit but at the end of the day it's the overall transportation options that really matter.

As a completely random example of what I am talking about, I looked at Google directions leaving from Coquitlam Centre at 9 am and heading for Waterfront in downtown Vancouver. I compared that to travelling from McKinley, TX to downtown Dallas.

The metro Vancouver example is around 50 minutes by transit or "35 minutes to 65 minutes" by car. The distance is about 25 km.

The Dallas example is 43 minutes by car with no transit option. The distance is over 50 km.

"Downtown" Markham to Union Station is about 32 km and estimated at 35-70 minutes by car, or just under 90 minutes by transit.

Meanwhile, looking at Europe.. Berlin is so compact that it's hard to even find a comparable example. If you live in the town of Bernau bei Berlin, on the outskirts, it takes 20-30 minutes to get to the city centre by transit. Driving is 35-65 minutes. The distance is around 25 km.

The Canadian examples are the worst of both worlds. European driving times but nothing approaching European transit times.