Canadian Transit Thread II

[ssiguy]

While I generally accept one's ability to strike, I am dead set against any such thing when it comes to transit.

Transit, especially in a city like Toronto, is an essential service which people's livelihoods, health, welfare, and education depend upon. This is an instance where Ford should step in and ban a strike.

I certainly agree that the workers should have the ability to pressure a gov't to meet fair demands and concerns but not at any price. This is why I support the workers being able to "work to rule". No overtime, no replacement for sick workers, or no rush hour only service {ie refusing split shifts}. Perhaps even just running the system on a Sunday level service. Such thing would bring a lot of political pressure to bear for both sides to reach an equitable solution but the bones of the system would be maintained.

Transit is an essential service and the workers should be remunerated accordingly but that does not mean they have the right to put a gun to the populations head.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Or just declare that Public Transit is an essential service, similar to Police and Fire. Because it really is, especially for major cities.

The province already tried that and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, so that doesn't work.

Its very unpopular to say, but the reality is that the financial sustainability of our public services has been severely hampered by court rulings that have taken away a lot of the tools governments used to be able to use to limit strikes. The long term consequence of this is likely to be more privatization of services.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Melbourne? You mean the city whose transit network had a third less use than the TTC* alone, not including suburban services like BT, DRT, GO, etc.? If that's "a century ahead," I don't want to go there.

They (finally!) unified fares earlier this year, so that barrier's gone, but I would rather keep service planning in the hands of the city. I don't see where you think this "better and more" service would come from with privatisation, which certainly hasn't led to any benefits in the UK, unless you (mistakenly) believe that the city's hoarding a pile of non-existent TTC profits in a Orangeville cave.

*with a larger service area, though the GTA is somewhat larger than the Melbourne metro area

What does ridership level have to do with anything? Their system is integrated and has been for decades despite a vastly larger network and more travel modalities, and they’ve done that despite having a hodge podge of operators. Did you even read my post? I clearly said planning should remain in the hands of Metrolinx and there said nothing about privatization beyond my comment on integration.


As for you not wanting to go there, you really should. The city has an LA style freeway network but with a transit system that puts Toronto to shame. And I consider Toronto to be the cream of the crop when it comes to public transit in Canada. B

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by theman23

As for you not wanting to go there, you really should. The city has an LA style freeway network but with a transit system that puts Toronto to shame. And I consider Toronto to be the cream of the crop when it comes to public transit in Canada. B

I'm a little confused. How can their transit system be so good and have substantially lower ridership? Jarrett Walker of Human Transit also noted 14 years ago that Australian cities across the board have lower transit modal share (for their size) than their Canadian counterparts. I doubt much has changed here, especially in a real apples to apples comparison that includes all of Toronto's transit services:



https://humantransit.org/2010/10/fur...umphalism.html

[theman23]

The point was that having numerous operators doesn't necessarily need to make transfers more difficult. The other example would be any Japanese city, although they haven't moved over to single fares yet. I used the Australian example because they have numerous operators and they've managed to have a single fare system for decades.

I don't know why modal share is low in Melbourne and so high in Toronto, but this isn't necessarily a reflection of how either city has chosen to organize the operation of their services and I'm struggling to see any plausible association. I can guess it may have to do with a lot of people not working in the CBD and it having inferior bus service to accommodate those people. A lot of the trains also run empty, but the capacity is still far superior to what's available in Toronto. This is a map of the Melbourne train network. It's essentially a u-bahn/s-bahn hybrid service that has all-day 10-30 minute service to inner city and suburbs, and 20-40 minute service to the outer burbs (think going to Hamilton or KW). This doesn't include their streetcar network, which is also the largest in the world. Even with all day electrified GO service and the completion of the Ontario line and all of its LRT projects, Toronto isn't going to achieve anything close to this.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by theman23

The point was that having numerous operators doesn't necessarily need to make transfers more difficult. The other example would be any Japanese city, although they haven't moved over to single fares yet. I used the Australian example because they have numerous operators and they've managed to have a single fare system for decades.

I mostly agree that having more operators shouldn't make transferring more difficult. With the caveat that the GTA has been rather incompetent at this, until Metrolinx imposed common fare medium. That said, the way the TTC integrates bus services into the fare paid zone at stations, could make multiple bus operations challenging. The only way I can see this working is if the bus network was separated out and every bus required tap on (even at stations).

Originally Posted by theman23

I don't know why modal share is low in Melbourne and so high in Toronto, but this isn't necessarily a reflection of how either city has chosen to operate their services. I can guess it may have to do with a lot of people not working in the CBD. A lot of the trains run empty, but the capacity is still far superior to what's available in Toronto. This is a map of the Melbourne train network. It's essentially a u-bahn/s-bahn hybrid service that has all-day 10-30 minute service to inner city and suburbs, and 20-40 minute service to the outer burbs (think going to Hamilton or KW). This doesn't include their streetcar network, which is also the largest in the world. Even with all day electrified GO service and the completion of the Ontario line and all of its LRT projects, Toronto isn't going to achieve anything close to this.

I'm not sure what the point is, of building and offering all that capacity and not having ridership. Their subsidies to transit must be incredibly high to allow that kind of inefficiency. The TTC, on the other hand, is famously one of the most farebox dependent transit services around.

[Nouvellecosse]

Nvm

[Truenorth00]

I don't think anybody said LA had a better system than Toronto.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't think anybody said LA had a better system than Toronto.

Yes I'm not awake yet lol.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by theman23

The point was that having numerous operators doesn't necessarily need to make transfers more difficult. The other example would be any Japanese city, although they haven't moved over to single fares yet. I used the Australian example because they have numerous operators and they've managed to have a single fare system for decades.

I don't know why modal share is low in Melbourne and so high in Toronto, but this isn't necessarily a reflection of how either city has chosen to organize the operation of their services and I'm struggling to see any plausible association. I can guess it may have to do with a lot of people not working in the CBD and it having inferior bus service to accommodate those people. A lot of the trains also run empty, but the capacity is still far superior to what's available in Toronto. This is a map of the Melbourne train network. It's essentially a u-bahn/s-bahn hybrid service that has all-day 10-30 minute service to inner city and suburbs, and 20-40 minute service to the outer burbs (think going to Hamilton or KW). This doesn't include their streetcar network, which is also the largest in the world. Even with all day electrified GO service and the completion of the Ontario line and all of its LRT projects, Toronto isn't going to achieve anything close to this.

That map is really crazy. But are these basically surface level trams not grade seperated rail? For a user a tram or a bus aren't much different. They must have a good highway network for everyone to be able to commute by road. Frankly our cities need improvements in both areas.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by theman23

What does ridership level have to do with anything? Their system is integrated and has been for decades despite a vastly larger network and more travel modalities, and they’ve done that despite having a hodge podge of operators. Did you even read my post? I clearly said planning should remain in the hands of Metrolinx and there said nothing about privatization beyond my comment on integration.


As for you not wanting to go there, you really should. The city has an LA style freeway network but with a transit system that puts Toronto to shame. And I consider Toronto to be the cream of the crop when it comes to public transit in Canada. B

The purpose of transit isn't to look impressive on a map, or Dallas and Los Angeles would be leaders in transit.

Transit is fundamentally about moving people efficiently. Higher ridership implies a more attractive service in comparison to the competition. And the TTC seems to be a far more attractive service than Melbourne's hodgepodge of low-frequency bus operators and tram vs. train competition, remembering that PTV (theoretically) coordinates Melbourne's transit networks.

Besides, you mention that there should be more operators. Are you suggesting the government compete against itself?

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That map is really crazy. But are these basically surface level trams not grade seperated rail? For a user a tram or a bus aren't much different. They must have a good highway network for everyone to be able to commute by road. Frankly our cities need improvements in both areas.

Melbourne's trams are surface trams, much like our streetcars.

----------------------------------------------------
I think the people who call for more operators are missing what makes the TTC successful and keeps subsidy low. The subway was (pre-COVID), substantially profitable, which cross-subsidised the feeder buses which made it profitable. Combining crosstown travel and feeder buses allowed a level of high frequency on the surface routes that matches most European cities, with ridership results.

For an example of why Melbourne's transit ridership remains low, here's a comparison of the highest frequency Metro Trains lines to the YUS. And note that I cherry picked the best line in Melbourne.

Let alone the bus frequencies, where even Melbourne's high ridership lines cannot compare to the 10 minute network, and might lose against Brampton Transit. Splitting frequency leads to worse results for everyone.

[hipster duck]

I've never been to Australia, but whenever I see a system with excellent coverage but low ridership I immediately think about service frequencies, not just of the rapid transit system but of connecting bus routes.

If nouvellecosse brought up LA, maybe that was where he was going. On a map, LA's rapid transit system looks impressive, but it's made up of rail lines with 15 minute frequencies where infrequent buses may feed a trickle of passengers into the system.

The other thing I'd say is that while regional rail has its benefits, the fact that Australian cities don't have metro (subway) systems and rely on regional rail for their rapid transit backbone probably results in lower ridership. Metros are expensive, but they serve a use case that no other mode really comes close at: moving a very high volume of passengers over a medium distance in a dense, built-up environment. This kind of travel pattern, and the land use associated with it, really drives up ridership in a way that even the most gold-plated regional rail systems cannot.

[niwell]

From what I can tell Sydney has started a metro system with 1 line partly completed and 2 under construction, and Melbourne has one in the planning stages including removal of level crossings on some lines. I'm not too familiar with these but from a quick glance it appears to be similar to the REM in Montreal - lighter rolling stock and at least partly automated. So kind of a hybrid subway/commuter rail rather than a true heavy subway/metro. The Ontario line will be somewhat similar but requires significantly more infrastructure by virtue of where it goes.

According to wiki the current Sydney metro line with 13 stations and 4 minute headways has a daily ridership of 74,000. So less than half of what the Eglinton Crosstown is projected to have and about 1/5th of the expected daily ridership of the Ontario line. Though obviously their ridership will increase as the system expands.

I think it's very fair to say that Australian cities currently have a much better suburban rail system than anything in Canada. This may still be the case when GO RER is completed, but I don't think the differential will be that big. They're different types of systems though - GO is designed to carry a lot more people than the suburban trains in Australia and generally has much wider stop spacing.

[savevp]

A larger version of Toronto's tram network with poor headways and even slower speeds - that is Melbourne's team network. Far better than Sydney, nor an adequate substitute for urban heavy rail. If you've ever stood in the cold. Melbourne rain waiting 20 minutes for a tram, then trundle along residential streets for an hour, as I've done many times, you realise why ridership is so low. It's an exceptional system for a city of the size, it's also got serious gaps. Sydney is lacking even moreso for urban rail. Australian cities across the board do suburban really well.

I'd take Toronto's network over any Australian city, even if it was hypothetically adjusted for population. Buses, trains, and trams show up all day and all the time.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by theman23

As for you not wanting to go there, you really should. The city has an LA style freeway network but with a transit system that puts Toronto to shame. And I consider Toronto to be the cream of the crop when it comes to public transit in Canada. B

Rather than LA, Melbourne's freeway network reminded me more of Boston and Montreal. There's no equivalent to the I-10, where the only Can/Aus parallel is the 401 running through the GTA.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm a little confused. How can their transit system be so good and have substantially lower ridership? Jarrett Walker of Human Transit also noted 14 years ago that Australian cities across the board have lower transit modal share (for their size) than their Canadian counterparts. I doubt much has changed here, especially in a real apples to apples comparison that includes all of Toronto's transit services:

I suspect it has to do with the built form of Australian suburbs, which is lower density and more sprawly than Canadian suburbs, but without the comparable US freeway infrastructure. Though the sprawl is still closer to SoCal style than the wide open Texan style exburbs.

Sydney can be a surprisingly frustrating city to get around, especially if you want to hit the Northern/Eastern beaches from the West without a car.

[Nouvellecosse]

It's so ironic that in Australia the suburban/commuter rail has long been their strong suit and they notoriously lacked any metro systems. So Sydney finally broke down and created it's first metro line... which is exactly the same as their suburban lines in terms of having extremely long stop spacing and high speeds serving trips from distant suburbs to the CBD rather than as urban transport within the city. The only real difference between their suburban trains and the new metro is in the trains which are more metro-like.

Their suburban rail systems also had very impressive ridership prior to the pandemic. If their numbers are less impressive now, it's probably down to WFH hitting suburban rail ridership harder than urban lines.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not sure what the point is, of building and offering all that capacity and not having ridership. Their subsidies to transit must be incredibly high to allow that kind of inefficiency. The TTC, on the other hand, is famously one of the most farebox dependent transit services around.

I recall seeing that the farebox recovery ratio in Melbourne and Sydney is shockingly low, like around 20-30%.

[ssiguy]

Melbourne is an example of size isn't everything. This also applies for nearly every US system save NYC.

Toronto's system is so successful due to it's high frequencies and not just on the subways. Toronto has the best surface transit system in NA and outperforms most of it's European counterparts as well. Most people don't mind taking transit but they hate waiting for it and Toronto figured this out decades ago. Now that the city is finally seeing massive expansions of it's BRTs, LRT, subways, and especially GO, the system will only grow exponentially.

As the old transit adage goes............frequency is freedom.

[theman23]

That map was for trains, not trams.

The schedule posted earlier was cherry picked. Train service is 10-20minutes or so during daytime hours on weekdays and evenings on weekends and can be as short as 6 minutes during peak times for service to inner city stations.