The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Free transit is not viable in Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Calgary or Ottawa because our transit infrastructure is already overcapacity. We would need to invest tens of billions in each city over 5-10 years before we can even start considering it, or at least major fare cuts (Toronto and Ottawa particularly).

It might be plausible in mid-sized cities where they would only need to purchase extra buses, hire more drivers and add a few bus lanes.

Such as York Region? With Viva Fare at $3.88(?) and YRT fare at $3.40, and with the lousy frequency they have right now, the region’s basically running glorified empty buses for the most part (most, because at least Viva Blue has decent ridership).

[Aylmer]

I really subscribe to the concept of fare-free public transport (FFPT) on an ideological level. But having gone through a lot of the evidence, I'm now less convinced that it actually accomplishes its transport goals.

From a transport perspective, FFPT is basically assumed to do two things:
1. Improve transit trips
2. Reduce car trips

For (1), although there are some improvements like faster boarding, FFPT falters in high-ridership situations like rush hour. You see this in places like Melbourne, where the downtown's free tram zone worsens overcrowding. Normally, high ridership is a good sign, but with free transit, the lion's share of new ridership is coming from people who'd have otherwise walked or biked over a short-distance trip. So sticking with the Melbourne example, trams get overcrowded with people going 1km, and leave those going 20km on the platform.

Point (2) is related to this. Most people don't avoid transit because it's expensive, or rather don't drive because it's cheap. In places where it exists, FFPT has had a pretty minuscule effect on rates of driving. If tried in busier places, I think it might even drive (pun!) people away from transit for the same reason I brought up for point (1); If your bus is overcrowded and stops on every block for people going short trips that could've been walked or biked, then your 20km trip is slower, more crowded, and less reliable. And of course even if it did divert some car trips, the induced demand from the freed-up space on the roads would make it all moot anyhow. No matter how many times public officials like to tout it, public transit just doesn't reduce congestion. It can reduce the rate of growth of congestion, it can create more trips, it can do all sorts of excellent, necessary things, but it just won't reduce car congestion.


Basically, FFPT's problem is that it diverts short trips from walking/biking, which negatively affects longer trips whose only alternative is driving. This is mostly a problem when space in a bus/subway is scarce and valuable, like rush hour. I think that most of FFPT's problems could be overcome by just limiting it to off-peak hours. So maybe taking the subway 7-10am is $4, but it's free (or at least cheaper) off-peak. That sort of arrangement could even help ease existing overcrowding at peak, and justify better off-peak service to match the less spiky ridership.

[Dengler Avenue]

Is it easy to implement variable transit fare then? I’m curious.

=====

I still think price has a little bit of influence. An anecdotal example from me: I used to work a summer job in Markham (while living in Richmond Hill). I tried bussing on the first day, then soon I realized that driving would be cheaper and faster, so without a second thought, I switched back to driving. This is with the bus coming every 18 minutes, by the way.

(Then again, I didn’t count depreciation so the trust cost might have been higher.)

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Is it easy to implement variable transit fare then? I’m curious.

It's not particularly difficult, especially for the rewards in reduced costs and crowding.

In the Netherlands, where peak/off-peak pricing is common, they generally have peak+offpeak transit passes, and a cheaper off-peak-only ones. I mostly travelled off-peak, so I took the latter, and I had unlimited travel, so long as my trip started in the off-peak hours. The times that I had to take the bus/train at peak, I'd just pay for a ticket since it wasn't covered by my pass. Other agencies just charged you a supplement to travel at peak.

[niwell]

Great idea in concept, but as others have noted it's not really possible in major Canadian cities at this time. In addition to serious capacity issues our current method of municipal revenue generation isn't really suited to providing free transit. Currently it would have to be funded primarily through property taxes, which really aren't the most equitable method of taxation for those types of services. You really have to tie free transit to a higher level of government / greater societal goal to make it work.

Some smaller municipalities could possibly swing it since fare revenues are likely a small portion of operating expenses, and operating expenses low in absolute terms. I'm thinking GTA suburbs where the transit systems are already geared towards an underutilized shuttle service for GO more than anything.

[J.OT13]

I agree with Aylmer's points regarding free transit. The best way to make transit more attractive and equitable is to have zone pricing (like Vancouver) and/or "surge" pricing (where rush hour is more expensive than off-peak).

It's also important to keep transit price competitive even at rush hour. At the moment, it's arguably cheaper to park in downtown Ottawa than to take transit if 2 people commute in the same car (throw in time and convenience as part of the calculation).

Reduced rates can be offered to low-income users, such as we have in Ottawa with the EquiPass, or University/College students with a uPass model.

[Aylmer]

I'm not actually a big fan of the zones, because it's a very blunt instrument trying to accomplish the wrong thing in my opinion.

At first blush, it seems unfair that someone taking the bus 1km pay as much as someone taking it 20km. And from a pure transit operations perspective, it is. But when you look at the transport network as a whole, it's a lot more valuable to have the 20km trip on transit than the 1km. The short trip can be done on foot or by bike, which costs a lot less in public dollars, infrastructure, and space. The long trip's only alternative is to drive, which is much more wasteful than transit in the same ways. So yes, the longer trip may cost more to the transit agency than the short one, but it's more efficient for everyone if the long one is on transit and the short one isn't. A flat fare does an ok job at incentivizing this; $3.50 to cross Ottawa is a steal, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay a whole $3.50 just to cross Downtown so I'll just walk.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I'm not actually a big fan of the zones, because it's a very blunt instrument trying to accomplish the wrong thing in my opinion.

At first blush, it seems unfair that someone taking the bus 1km pay as much as someone taking it 20km. And from a pure transit operations perspective, it is. But when you look at the transport network as a whole, it's a lot more valuable to have the 20km trip on transit than the 1km. The short trip can be done on foot or by bike, which costs a lot less in public dollars, infrastructure, and space. The long trip's only alternative is to drive, which is much more wasteful than transit in the same ways. So yes, the longer trip may cost more to the transit agency than the short one, but it's more efficient for everyone if the long one is on transit and the short one isn't. A flat fare does an ok job at incentivizing this; $3.50 to cross Ottawa is a steal, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay a whole $3.50 just to cross Downtown so I'll just walk.

Those are extreme examples though. I was thinking around the lines of why should someone taking the O-Train from Westboro pay the same rate as someone coming in from Barrhaven. I would suggest two zones: inner-Greenbelt and outer-Greenbelt, which would be somewhat similar to the days we had Regular, Express and Rural. Inner-Greenbelt would be somewhere around $100/month or $3/trip vs outer-Greenbelt $130/month or $4/trip. At $3/trip, it would still discourage people to take transit for 1 kilometer. Such a system would require scanning in and out of the fare gates, like they do in Vancouver.

[MalcolmTucker]

I have to wonder about free fare transit in a place like KC that has such bad transit-is it just another excuse to not improve service? KC has a large population (2.1 million) yet even Victoria, Brampton, and York Region more than double KCs ridership numbers. KC has more freeway lane miles per capita than any other metro area in the USA.

The dollars going into free fare transit and the streetcar line - perhaps it would do greater social good increasing frequency even a bit from what seems like a 30 minute plus average from a random sample on google maps.

It seems to me it is almost a ‘don’t complain about what you get-it’s free’ move more than a enlightened social good. Fares were covering such a low portion of the budget to begin with that collecting them was probably costing a huge portion of the revenue.

I guess my point is: low or high fare box recovery ratios can mean very different things depending on where on the curve you sit. But 20% recovery with low service certainly doesn’t have equal value as 20% recovery with high service.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Those are extreme examples though. I was thinking around the lines of why should someone taking the O-Train from Westboro pay the same rate as someone coming in from Barrhaven. I would suggest two zones: inner-Greenbelt and outer-Greenbelt, which would be somewhat similar to the days we had Regular, Express and Rural. Inner-Greenbelt would be somewhere around $100/month or $3/trip vs outer-Greenbelt $130/month or $4/trip. At $3/trip, it would still discourage people to take transit for 1 kilometer. Such a system would require scanning in and out of the fare gates, like they do in Vancouver.

Could Ottawa emulate a much smaller version of London's fare zones? Similar to your suggestion of using inner-greenbelt and outer-greenbelt?

[hipster duck]

Really, subsidized passes for low income people takes care of the main benefit of free transit without adding all the negatives. A lot of jurisdictions do this to some degree, although it could be improved.

Canadian cities really need to focus their transit dollars to improving travel times/speeds and capacity as well as regional transit integration before we tackle free service. Those existing issues pose as big (or bigger) of a challenge for poor riders as out of pocket costs do.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes, there is no such thing as free anything but the same could be said of public schools, healthcare, old age security and a whole litany of government services that are also "free".

The question is how transit should be paid for. Fares? Property taxes? Income taxes? Should only riders pay or should everyone pay? How big of a priority is transit in general and how much money should go to it?

A bunch of American cities have tried free fares or fare-free areas but they tended to end up with homelessness and crime problems on transit.

Another factor is that if you get rid of fares you can get rid of all the fare collection infrastructure. Probably a single-digit percentage of the fare revenues but not nothing. Also, a certain number of existing passengers are getting rides for free so that should be considered.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another factor is that if you get rid of fares you can get rid of all the fare collection infrastructure. Probably a single-digit percentage of the fare revenues but not nothing. Also, a certain number of existing passengers are getting rides for free so that should be considered.

Not just getting rid of the fare collection infrastructure, but also the time and delays that are often part of the fare collection process. This can often be eliminated by proof of payment fare handling which is fairly common on higher order transit systems but is fairly difficult for basic buses since there are rarely ticket machines at every stop.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I have to wonder about free fare transit in a place like KC that has such bad transit-is it just another excuse to not improve service?

I think it's an attempt to juice ridership to maintain relevance and jobs, especially high-paying (relative to operating revenues) upper-level management.



Does an agency as small as KC (operating revenues of about $11.5M/year) really need a CEO and a deputy CEO making nearly $1M/year combined? I believe Calgary gets away with a director making about $250K/year running a system with a magnitude more ridership.

[lightrail]

Here is the ranking of Canadian Rapid Transit Systems (subway and LRTs) by route length:

Year 2020:
Vancouver - 79.6 km, 3 lines
Toronto - 76.5 km - 4 lines
Montreal - 69.2 km - 4 lines
Calgary - 56.2 km - 2 lines
Edmonton - 24.3 km - 2 lines
Ottawa - 20.5 km - 2 lines
Waterloo - 19.0 km - 1 line

Year 2021 - Montreal leaps into first place with the opening of the REM line. Toronto stays in second place but adds distance with the opening of the Eglington Line. Edmonton adds the Valley Line but stays in 5th place.
Montreal - 136.2 km - 5 lines
Toronto - 95.5 km - 5 lines
Vancouver - 79.6 km, 3 lines
Calgary - 56.2 km - 2 lines
Edmonton - 37.3 km - 3 lines
Ottawa - 20.5 km - 2 lines
Waterloo - 19.0 km - 1 line

Year 2023 - Toronto adds the Finch Line and stays in second place.
Montreal - 136.2 km - 5 lines
Toronto - 106.5 km - 6 lines
Vancouver - 79.6 km, 3 lines
Calgary - 56.2 km - 2 lines
Edmonton - 37.3 km - 3 lines
Ottawa - 20.5 km - 2 lines
Waterloo - 19.0 km - 1 line

Year 2024 - Ottawa opens extensions to the Confederation and Trillium Line moving into 4th place, moving Edmonton down to 6th and Waterloo to 7th. Mississauga joins the list in 8th place with the opening of the Hurontario Line.
Montreal - 136.2 km - 5 lines
Toronto - 106.5 km - 6 lines
Vancouver - 79.6 km, 3 lines
Ottawa - 64.4 km - 2 lines
Calgary - 56.2 km - 2 lines
Edmonton - 37.3 km - 3 lines
Waterloo - 19.0 km - 1 line
Mississauga - 18 km - 1 line

Year 2025 - Vancouver remains in 3rd place while adding extensions to the Millennium Line and Expo line.
Montreal - 136.2 km - 5 lines
Toronto - 106.5 km - 6 lines
Vancouver - 92.6 km, 3 lines
Ottawa - 64.4 km - 2 lines
Calgary - 56.2 km - 2 lines
Edmonton - 37.3 km - 3 lines
Waterloo - 19.0 km - 1 line
Mississauga - 18 km - 1 line

Year 2026 - Calgary moves into 4th place with the opening of the Green Line.
Montreal - 136.2 km - 5 lines
Toronto - 106.5 km - 6 lines
Vancouver - 92.6 km, 3 lines
Calgary - 76.2 km - 3 lines
Ottawa - 64.4 km - 2 lines
Edmonton - 37.3 km - 3 lines
Waterloo - 19.0 km - 1 line
Mississauga - 18 km - 1 line

[lightrail]

And now by Ridership (numbers latest available and may be a bit out of date in some instances, but should be close):

2020
Toronto - 1,580,000
Montreal - 1,368,000
Vancouver - 527,000
Calgary - 270,000
Ottawa - 116,000
Edmonton - 111,000
Waterloo - 17,000

The following are ridership estimates for 2026 with full build out of all funded and under-construction projects:

2026
Toronto - 1,780,000
Montreal - 1,538,000
Vancouver - 727,000
Calgary - 335,000
Ottawa - 216,000**
Edmonton - 143,000
Mississauga - 95,000
Waterloo - 17,000

** no official estimates provide on-line. Best guess.

Ridership increase per km of new track 2020 - 2026.

Vancouver - 15,385 new riders per 1 km of new track
Toronto - 6,670 new riders per 1 km of new track
Mississauga - 5,200 new riders per 1 km of new track
Calgary - 3,250 new riders per 1 km of new track
Montreal - 2,540 new riders per 1 km of new track
Edmonton - 2,461 new riders per 1 km of new track
Ottawa - 2,275 new riders per 1 km of new track

Waterloo - no expansion planned

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lightrail

And now by Ridership (numbers latest available and may be a bit out of date in some instances, but should be close):

Ottawa - 116,000

Thanks for sharing these numbers. Great progress coming down the pipeline.

Quick correction for Ottawa. The current estimated ridership of the Confederation Line is 200,000 per day. With Trillium, that ridership goes up to 216,800.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-lrt-confederation-line-1.5258684
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillium_Line

[swimmer_spe]

I hate people taking rapid transit yet ignoring commuter rail and streetcars. You throw that in and Toronto dwarfs every other city.

Right now, Toronto has open 76.9km subway and RT, 83km of Streetcar lines, and 522.5km of Go Train service.
Total for Toronto is 682.4km of service that is not on a bus. of that is just operated by the TTC is 159.9 km

Montreal has 69.2km metro and 256.4 for the EXO commuter rail for a total of 256.4 km.
That is 37% of what Toronto has.

Vancouver is even worse. It has 79.6 km f Skytrain and 69km for the west Coast Express for a total of 148.6km.
That is just over 21% of what Toronto has.

Now, if we include the Ion and all the other LRTs that are either being built in Toronto, or are connected to the GO Train, the GTA becomes much more easier to navigate by transit.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Thanks for sharing these numbers. Great progress coming down the pipeline.

Quick correction for Ottawa. The current estimated ridership of the Confederation Line is 200,000 per day. With Trillium, that ridership goes up to 216,800.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-lrt-confederation-line-1.5258684
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillium_Line

We probably won't see the official stats for a while, but Line 2 numbers were way up after Line 1 began operations. 40%+ according to a few people I spoke to. So that could mean Line 2 ridership could be closer to 25,000 at this point.

[ssiguy]

When I stated this idea 2 days ago, I wanted to see some of your responses, here's mine:

I do NOT believe in free transit. While I very much appaud KC for it's efforts and trying to create more equaluality, I don't agree with it. Certainly it is easier in KC because ridership is so low that it really is peanuts in compared to the city's budget but even if it wasn't I still wouldn't agree.

I think there should be some form of payment for the service rendered as, as noted earlier, nothing is free. More than that, especially in crime ridden US cities, they can become a de-facto crime shuttle and create the impression amongst new potential riders that the service is dangerous. If they have the desired effect of increasing ridership, then that can be problematic. How do increase service and freuncy when your funding is set because those new riders don't create any new revenue to help expand service? That means going back to City Hall every year pleading for more funding which is politically unpalatable.

I do, however, agree with MUCH cheaper transit. Transit prices have generally increased far faster than inflation over the last 30 years and some of the prices completely inhibit somme people from true mobility. This is exacerbated in expensive cities where low income people have to move far from their work places due to skyhigh real estate/ rentals meaning longer and more expensive transit fares to the people who can least afford it. When I say lower fares, I much more lower like $1.00/ride or $25/month for a monthly pass. An increase in ridership would still bring in some higher revenue and dramatically cut down on fare evasion. There would be far less evasion if prices are dramatically lower and the people who still cheat will cost the system relative very little.

People, especially the transit dependent, are very price sensitive, far more than most think. This is why transit agencies are loath to increase fares even by a small amount because they know it could result in lower ridership whipping out any new revenue. This is why commuter rail lines are filled with professionals but few working class as they can't afford the higher fares. Toronto is seeing this. GO has dropped fares by 40% for trips less than 10km and ridership is soaring for people going to the inner city to Union...……….these people wanted to take faster, more comfortable, and more convenient commuter rail but couldn't afford to.