The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yep. Almost all routes in Ottawa stop between midnight and 1am. The Transitway has 24/7 bus service, though, and there's a good chunk of the city's population within a reasonable walk of a Transitway station. This is actually extended in the overnight hours as many Transitway routes detour off of the actual Transitway corridor and onto streets, acting as local buses, during the late night to increase coverage. For example the #95 Transitway bus to Orleans provides local service on St. Joseph Boulevard after 1am.

A good chunk do, but a good chunk also don't. Montreal and Merivale for instance both have loads of apartment complexes no where near the transitways. I can understand many routes shutting down, but some of the major routes (like the 118, the 12, and the 1 as examples) should be kept running. Something off in the Elmvale area would be good too.

[SteelTown]

Update on the James St N GO Station construction....

Originally Posted by lucasmascotto

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=6704537

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Update on Fredericton's transit system (laughable as it is).

The uproar over cancelling two of the 'lesser used' routes (Silverwood and Lincoln) has convinced the council to keep them going for a year at reduced frequencies. Note that these routes were already at a reduced rate to start with.

I think this is actually a serious transit planning issue, and I am glad that Silverwood and Lincoln had some victory in this.

Canadian transit networks have one of the best and most equitable transit planning policies in the world. Generally a transit system will have a goal that 95% of residents and jobs should be within a 5 minute or so walk of a bus. Coupled with this is minimum service span and frequency policies.

What these standards have done is create a transit network that gives most people access to transit, and allows transit to be usable for most trips.

As good as he is, Jarrett Walker with his transit planning book has made a huge splash with this whole idea that transit agencies must choose between coverage or ridership and come up with a percentage of service they will consider coverage. This is a very American way of looking at transit.

His whole idea being that transit agencies are going to have to choose to cut off some areas from transit, in order to put resources on busy transit routes. Or at least give some areas, like lower density areas not that attractive of a service.

While I think Jarrett Walker may be more moderate in this view, transit planners have taken this as a new fad, and you are seeing many Canadian systems asking this ridership vs coverage question.

The truth is that a transit system does not need to choose between either one. You can have coverage and ridership, because without a transit network that gets people to all areas of the built up area, you are not going to have ridership.
Also, if a transit system is properly funded, you can have basic service to all areas, and then have more service on busy corridors. This is basically what most transit agencies in Canada do.

Anyway, Fredericton Transit thought they could cut off transit in those two areas and use the resources elsewhere.
That is not right, and in fact those two areas deserve more bus service.

This is sadly a debate we are probably going to see play out in other areas.
Halifax Transit also has been asking residents if they should cut off service to some suburban areas, in order to focus service on busy urban corridors.
Vancouver has also been doing this. And Edmonton has been also thinking about this, again after Jarrett Walker came to talk to them. It actually caused one city councillor to get pretty upset, when he heard some areas of Edmonton could lose transit service all together, or residents would have to walk very long distances to access transit.

This issue is serious. Last time I checked, Canadian transit systems had much better ridership and equity. American transit where they focus on perceived ridership have low transit usage, and extreme issues with people being able to access transit and jobs, because the transit systems do not provide a basic coverage.

This idea also goes against the great transit planning teachings of Paul Mess who used many Canadian examples of how we can provide great transit in lower density areas. And how we have to provide a good transit network to all areas of a city. And not pick and choose.

So we can have both ridership and coverage, and the Fredericton debate is one we need to have to protect the service standards which have made Canadian transit so good.
The whole Fredericton issue was due to the city not wanting to spend more money on transit, and trying to squeeze water out of a stone.

[Innsertnamehere]

Final copy of the Stouffville GO expansion EA is out:

$270 million dollar project (not including rolling stock or upgrades to the lakeshore line which would presumably need a 4th track), 30 minute off peak service to Unionville, hourly to Mount Joy. Double tracking to Unionville. With Electrification I wouldn't be surprised if those frequencies were halfed, with hourly to Lincolnville. (that would be for another further EA however)

http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/improve/environmentalassessments.aspx

direct link to PDF: (WARNING, LARGE FILE)

[DizzyEdge]

The routing for the future (perhaps distant future) Calgary North Central LRT has been announced, Centre Street

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/North+central+down+Centre+Street/10151597/story.html

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Final copy of the Stouffville GO expansion EA is out:

$270 million dollar project (not including rolling stock or upgrades to the lakeshore line which would presumably need a 4th track), 30 minute off peak service to Unionville, hourly to Mount Joy. Double tracking to Unionville. With Electrification I wouldn't be surprised if those frequencies were halfed, with hourly to Lincolnville. (that would be for another further EA however)

http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/improve/environmentalassessments.aspx

direct link to PDF: (WARNING, LARGE FILE)

For now, with Stouffville & Lakeshore both at 30 minutes, couldn't they avoid a 4th track on Lakeshore between Scarb & Union by scheduling Stouffville trains to use the line between Lakeshore runs?

Also, do we know when 2WAD service is coming to the Georgetown line? It should be theoretically possible to introduce hourly service to Brampton next year when the GTS completes.

[Innsertnamehere]

Off peak service of some kind is coming to Georgetown starting early next year, but not full service as they still need another track technically.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I think this is actually a serious transit planning issue, and I am glad that Silverwood and Lincoln had some victory in this.

Canadian transit networks have one of the best and most equitable transit planning policies in the world. Generally a transit system will have a goal that 95% of residents and jobs should be within a 5 minute or so walk of a bus. Coupled with this is minimum service span and frequency policies.

What these standards have done is create a transit network that gives most people access to transit, and allows transit to be usable for most trips.

As good as he is, Jarrett Walker with his transit planning book has made a huge splash with this whole idea that transit agencies must choose between coverage or ridership and come up with a percentage of service they will consider coverage. This is a very American way of looking at transit.

His whole idea being that transit agencies are going to have to choose to cut off some areas from transit, in order to put resources on busy transit routes. Or at least give some areas, like lower density areas not that attractive of a service.

While I think Jarrett Walker may be more moderate in this view, transit planners have taken this as a new fad, and you are seeing many Canadian systems asking this ridership vs coverage question.

The truth is that a transit system does not need to choose between either one. You can have coverage and ridership, because without a transit network that gets people to all areas of the built up area, you are not going to have ridership.

Also, if a transit system is properly funded, you can have basic service to all areas, and then have more service on busy corridors. This is basically what most transit agencies in Canada do.

Anyway, Fredericton Transit thought they could cut off transit in those two areas and use the resources elsewhere.
That is not right, and in fact those two areas deserve more bus service.

This is sadly a debate we are probably going to see play out in other areas.
Halifax Transit also has been asking residents if they should cut off service to some suburban areas, in order to focus service on busy urban corridors.
Vancouver has also been doing this. And Edmonton has been also thinking about this, again after Jarrett Walker came to talk to them. It actually caused one city councillor to get pretty upset, when he heard some areas of Edmonton could lose transit service all together, or residents would have to walk very long distances to access transit.

This issue is serious. Last time I checked, Canadian transit systems had much better ridership and equity. American transit where they focus on perceived ridership have low transit usage, and extreme issues with people being able to access transit and jobs, because the transit systems do not provide a basic coverage.

This idea also goes against the great transit planning teachings of Paul Mess who used many Canadian examples of how we can provide great transit in lower density areas. And how we have to provide a good transit network to all areas of a city. And not pick and choose.

So we can have both ridership and coverage, and the Fredericton debate is one we need to have to protect the service standards which have made Canadian transit so good.
The whole Fredericton issue was due to the city not wanting to spend more money on transit, and trying to squeeze water out of a stone.

Some of Fredericton's routes are needlessly circuitous. Toronto does a very good job of straight routes as a function of its planning. Most cities are not Toronto - I remember when Toronto tried to do something like this they were cutting well used routes to add capacity to over burdened routes (likely it was just an exercise in politics to try to get extra money to expand, so the experience is moot).

When adding service in Fredericton, do you want to throw good money after bad? You can have two networks, one which follows the service for the most people principle, and one that functions as the coverage/equity network. A long underused route would likely be better served by a dial a bus van pool, which is ignored as an option in most of north america.

If your service network, if you do not generate ridership you can eliminate it and go back to a different service model after 6 months or a year.

And yeah, in most situations there will be tradeoffs. How is it right to keep underused service on lines when the resources could be used better elsewhere? Provide less value to potential riders and to citizen's money?

Unfortunately Fredericton is pretty small so the national census does not provide a very good picture of relative densities, and as far as I can tell there is not a more details map from the city itself. But putting some likely trip generators on a map starts to show where you might want to invest in a higher capacity route. The largest mall (south side), then hospital, then post sec cluster, then downtown, and across the river to any logical turnaround point (if it is the mall, then there is a rec facility or two on the way as well.

Map:
freddy by Odarwin1, on Flickr

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Some of Fredericton's routes are needlessly circuitous. Toronto does a very good job of straight routes as a function of its planning. Most cities are not Toronto - I remember when Toronto tried to do something like this they were cutting well used routes to add capacity to over burdened routes (likely it was just an exercise in politics to try to get extra money to expand, so the experience is moot).

Yes some of the routes are circuitous, and that should be addressed. There is nothing wrong with straightening out routes, and asking residents to walk a block extra to something along those lines to get to the bus.
But cutting service outright to whole areas is not acceptable.

Concerning Toronto. That move was political thanks to Rob Ford. Also in big cities, where the service is more robust, you can move service around and still keep everyone within reasonable access of quality service.

But what Fredericton was doing, was cutting whole areas out.

When adding service in Fredericton, do you want to throw good money after bad? You can have two networks, one which follows the service for the most people principle, and one that functions as the coverage/equity network. A long underused route would likely be better served by a dial a bus van pool, which is ignored as an option in most of north america.

That is fine. I think a Taxibus service to those areas would be great.

Considering these routes only had a handful of trips a day, their ridership was actually pretty good.

And yeah, in most situations there will be tradeoffs. How is it right to keep underused service on lines when the resources could be used better elsewhere? Provide less value to potential riders and to citizen's money?

Do we not keep underused roads open? Do we not keep underused water connections in use? Do we not keep fire departments staffed, even though fires are rare?

This is a public service, and we need to provide a basic service to all people in the built up area. It is not like none lives in those two areas.

Unfortunately Fredericton is pretty small so the national census does not provide a very good picture of relative densities,

Too much emphasis is put on density. If those two remote neighborhoods were in Switzerland, they would have hourly or better bus service until midnight, seven days a week.

Those two areas are no different than other areas of Fredericton. The only difference is they are separated by a km or two of empty land.

We have to stop making excuses for city governments which do not want to spend money. They all became an issue because Fredericton does not want to spend money. But they are willing to spend something like $10 million to prop up an underused sports arena or something.

[Taeolas]

It would never happen, but I wish a community (hell I wish Freddy would do it) would have the balls to experiment bringing in a European style Transit system experiment (min-hourly service 0600-0000 or so to all regions), to see how it might work and if it can be successful out here.

As for Freddy's system, they are straightening some of the routes out a little, though there are still a lot of areas underserved; as well as route options being unutilized. All buses to the North side cross Westmorland street bridge, leaving the Princess Margaret bridge unused (even though 3-4 routes go within spitting distance of that bridge). So when Westmorland Street was under reconstruction like it was this summer, the backups to the bridge threw the entire transit system's timing off for most mornings and evenings.

There are also Destination areas of the city that are unserved even now. For years, 2Nations Crossing, Bishop Drive and Hanwell Road had no service. Now, only 2NC has service; the other two areas are unserved, despite have a growing retail presence on both. With changes to Freddy's road network coming in the next few years, Bishops Drive might see some busing at least.

Freddy Transit's website does have a link to their old (2008ish) master plan which does have a number of good ideas, but seems to have mostly been ignored. The 2NC route it advised was tried, but cancelled due to lack of use (The timings of the route were horrible). Eventually the 16 was rerouted to cover that area and it seems to work great.

When I talked to the Transport council during the open house, it seems obvious they seem a bit out of touch with the city needs. Or at least they have a big chicken and the egg problem. They didn't see access to the two big arenas the city just built as an issue, because people aren't using them to go to the arenas. (Ironically both public houses were held at those arenas, which highlighted how awkward it is to get to them by transit).

Also, as the master plan noted, but the transit council decided was a non issue, the north side has no cross-traffic. If you want to go from the North East to the North West, you have to go to Kingsplace, and cross the bridge twice to reach it. (A legacy of the Hub system we have) So when the studies show a lot of North side passengers are going to the South side, it's because it's easy to get in the mindset of "I'm already here, I might as well keep going." Granted, the North side doesn't have as good a hub location as Regent Mall serves the SOuth side, so I can see a bit of the reasoning, but it's annoying.

(Now that the buses are hourly, it's slightly better. I can catch the 13 and transfer to the 16 to get to the 2NC shopping area about 10 minutes faster than riding the 13 all the way to the end, and be confident I can catch the 16 back to transfer to the 13 home after).

It is strange that they seem determined not to bring buses near any Destinations. With the changes on Tuesday, there are no buses going near the Exhibition grounds (where the NBEx is held, and where events are often held in the arena and race track). Riders would have to walk a long block to get there now, when the bus used to go right by the North entrance.

Also if you are going to the Intracity bus station (at Smythe and Dundonald), the bus (the 13 again) turns just before it gets to the station, so you're half a block away from the nearest bus stops and have to cross at least one street.

Since hte airport is in Lincoln, bus access to the airport is right out. (And if it wasn't would be on one of those bubble routes that are on the verge of being cancelled)

Anyways, the changes taking effect on Tuesday are a good first step, but Freddy Transit needs a lot of work still, both to fill in the holes in the schedule and in the region for coverage. Sadly, from the open house discussions, I get the feeling they don't have much planned beyond what they have implemented.

*Edit* What's a bit funny is if you look at the Master Plan from 2008, they compare Freddy to "Similar Sized Transit Systems", and they include Kingston as one of them. Kingston which (I believe) is starting to do things like add BRT routes and has been (according to this thread) reinvesting in their system for years, while Freddy's has pretty much languished. We don't have the population to support BRT here regardless, but it's sad to see how we've diverged.

[1overcosc]

Back in 2008, Kingston was probably comparable to Fredericton. Kingston Transit was really nothing special back then. Although 2008 was around the time Kingston started its big vehicle/tech upgrade push (modernizing the bus fleet, adding next-stop announcement, introducing smart card payment), we didn't get the ball rolling on actual service improvements until 2010.

It still amazes me that Kingston Transit went from being bad even for a small city in 2008, to one of the best systems in North America for a city in its size class that it is today. The answer to Kingston's success?
1) Good planning by people who actually use the transit system everyday and understand how people use it,
2) Good old fashioned MONEY. Operational funding from the city government has increased 35% since 2010, with plans for a further 15% increase next year.
3) Supportive parking policy. Kingston has been taking action to deliberately increase the market price of parking in the downtown area, by selling off municipal parking lots for redevelopment and restricting on-street parking.

Point #2 brings up the old chicken and egg problem of transit: you need money to bring about service improvements to increase ridership, but you need more ridership to get the money. Kingston solved that problem by increasing the subsidy & allowing the farebox recovery rate to drop, with the idea being that will slowly grow ridership over time. The 2013 service improvements have resulted in a 14% year-over-year ridership increase. Many other Ontario transit systems are struggling to grow ridership because they insist on maintaining or growing the farebox recovery rate.

Kingston's approach to implementing and expanding the BRT system is also unique in that it focuses on service-first, infrastructure-second. Most rapid transit schemes first come up with the shiny infrastructure they want, then figure out service details afterwards. For example, Ottawa is doing an EA for a BRT along Baseline Road and has already made a number of infrastructure decisions (For example, station locations & lane configuration have been mostly decided on) but its still unclear how the city plans to use it in its bus network. Kingston STARTS with figuring out exactly what service it wants--hours of operation, frequency, routing, etc. and then builds the infrastructure from there.

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto's new streetcars started passenger service today, the first trip was made by 4403 with 4400 behind it. Over the coming months the 510 spadina route will be entirely converted to the new streetcars and the rollout will move to the 509 Bathurst route.

[caltrane74]

Ridin' in the new Low Floor



Yes, I am a complete nerd

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Sweet lord, it looks like a mini-C-train!

[SignalHillHiker]

Bienvenue a Montreal.

Local perspective:

• Video Link

Rural Newfoundlander perspective:

• Video Link

[JHikka]

Just wanted to pop in and say that I took my first GO Transit bus this past weekend (Union Station to Mount Joy Station/Stouffville Line).

I had absolutely no issues apart from finding the GO Bus Terminal at Union. This was mostly just due to the mass construction Union is undergoing right now. The bus was clean and relatively new, the route out the DVP and 407 was quick, and the bus ran on time (Sunday morning). There was only 14 people riding from Union but I wasn't expecting a lot on a Sunday morning, relatively speaking. It was a pretty good bus trip for $7.90.

On top of this, I also took the Sheppard (4) Line on TTC Subway for the first time from Don Mills before transferring south on the Yonge-U-Spadina line to College. The Sheppard line was pretty straightforward....Y-U-S had a newer train, was very clean, not crowded (Saturday afternoon) and the ride was pleasant and relatively quick. I always bemoan Toronto for its lack of transit to certain areas, but these were two pretty enjoyable experiences.

[matt602]

If you'd taken the same trip at rush hour on a weekday, you'd probably have had a VERY different experience. Union Station at rush hour is a zoo, as is the entire TTC. I've seriously had to let half a dozen subway trains pass before I could physically squeeze onto one. The Toronto-Hamilton Express GO buses are usually standing room only as well which is a pain to go through on a coach bus driving down the highway for an hour.

[Innsertnamehere]

I've taken that GO bus trip more times that I would like to count, actually (difference is that I go past Mount Joy).

Typically at rush hour at College Station, 5pm, you need to wait for a single train to pass from my experience. College / Wellesley are where the trains are the fullest as well.

[WhipperSnapper]

Having to let more than one train pass sounds like a claustrophobic condition. Every successful system is packed at rush hour. Toronto really isn't that bad.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by matt602

If you'd taken the same trip at rush hour on a weekday, you'd probably have had a VERY different experience. Union Station at rush hour is a zoo, as is the entire TTC. I've seriously had to let half a dozen subway trains pass before I could physically squeeze onto one. The Toronto-Hamilton Express GO buses are usually standing room only as well which is a pain to go through on a coach bus driving down the highway for an hour.

Possibly. I've only ever taken Toronto's TTC Subway on weekends. I may have to agree with Whippersnapper on this:

Originally Posted by Whippersnapper

Having to let more than one train pass sounds like a claustrophobic condition. Every successful system is packed at rush hour. Toronto really isn't that bad.

I'll try Toronto's subway at rush hour sometime, but I find it hard to fathom that it would be any worse than London's Underground (which I had the pleasure of riding last year). I know Toronto's system is too small for a city its size, and I know plenty of people use it, but stations like London Bridge and Charring Cross can be absolutely hellish at times, and their trains were much narrower and tighter than any of the TTC trains i've been on. Certainly there must be people on this forum that know more on this subject than I do.