The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GreaterMontréal]

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

You forgot the Blue line extension, ridership between 80,000-100,000.
I think the REM will have a ridership above 300,000 within the first 3 years of operation.If we can reach 500,000 with the REM phase 2, having the total ridership close to 2M would be a total success.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

You forgot the Blue line extension, ridership between 80,000-100,000.
I think the REM will have a ridership above 300,000 within the first 3 years of operation.If we can reach 500,000 with the REM phase 2, having the total ridership close to 2M would be a total success.

What?

The REM is projected to have a ridership of 160,000 and it’s 25,000 for the Blue line extension.

[swimmer_spe]

My take on free transit.

There really is no city that could afford to not have fares. Taxes would need to increase, and too many "taxpayers" would be up in arms about this.

Most transit agencies would need to double their fleet. If it were free, the amount of people who would start taking it more often would be much more than the current fleet of buses would handle.

Schedules would have too be redone, with buses coming at least twice as often to handle the capacity.

For the larger cites, the various RT could not handle the amount of added passengers. Even if they were run at the highest design frequency and length, they could not handle the demand. Many are already like that.

However, if I were a mayor of a major city, such as Toronto, Montreal, and others with mi of buses and RT, I would have 2 fares. The current fare would still apply for the RT but a reduced fare that over 5-10 years could be phased out as more buses are added to the fleet. This would grow the bus use while possibly keeping the RT from having an explosive growth. Once the bus system is free, then slowly reduce the fares on the RT as well, but over 10-20 years as more RT is built.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My take on free transit.

There really is no city that could afford to not have fares. Taxes would need to increase, and too many "taxpayers" would be up in arms about this.

Most transit agencies would need to double their fleet. If it were free, the amount of people who would start taking it more often would be much more than the current fleet of buses would handle.

Schedules would have too be redone, with buses coming at least twice as often to handle the capacity.

For the larger cites, the various RT could not handle the amount of added passengers. Even if they were run at the highest design frequency and length, they could not handle the demand. Many are already like that.

However, if I were a mayor of a major city, such as Toronto, Montreal, and others with mi of buses and RT, I would have 2 fares. The current fare would still apply for the RT but a reduced fare that over 5-10 years could be phased out as more buses are added to the fleet. This would grow the bus use while possibly keeping the RT from having an explosive growth. Once the bus system is free, then slowly reduce the fares on the RT as well, but over 10-20 years as more RT is built.

I disagree. What services "earn" in fares is only a fraction of their income however the total amount is relatively small compared to what revenue could and should be used from gasoline and carbon taxes to operation such services. It's just a matter of getting the moronic politicians out of the way and you'll see a much higher rate of use and less cars on the road. Even if you factor in the lost revenue from the switch it's worth it.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

What?

The REM is projected to have a ridership of 160,000 and it’s 25,000 for the Blue line extension.

It's 25,000 during the morning rush hour, and 87,000 in 24hrs.
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/0...000-voitures-en-moins-a-lheure-de-pointe

They always underestimate the ridership in Montréal.

The ridership at the three Laval metro stations has more than doubled since their commissioning, from 3.9 million passages in 2007 to 9.2 million in 2016.

[WhipperSnapper]

So your solution is to tax the usual suspects to fully fund transit operations thereby increasing transit usage and reducing the use of personal vehicles. How does that work? In that situation, operational costs would continue to increase while your only source of revenues would continue to decrease. There is an optimal level between subsidizing transit operations and charging a nominal fee. It's definitely not free. The average Torontonian is taxed heavily for the value they get in return. (I don't mean Torontonians necessarily pay high taxes) Taxing drivers is not fair when transit is not an option for many situations. Free fares is not going to increase capacity and efficiency. Another usual argument is that drivers are subsidized through the costs of building and maintaining roads however, those costs to build and maintain that infrastructure won't simply go away once you eliminate personal vehicles.

It's like liberalism vs conservatism around the world. Everyone views themselves as Jedi and the other side Sith. It gets us nowhere. Cars are not the enemy to transit and transit is not the enemy to cars. They both need to contribute no matter how menial that contribute is to the overall scope.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

I disagree. What services "earn" in fares is only a fraction of their income however the total amount is relatively small compared to what revenue could and should be used from gasoline and carbon taxes to operation such services. It's just a matter of getting the moronic politicians out of the way and you'll see a much higher rate of use and less cars on the road. Even if you factor in the lost revenue from the switch it's worth it.

What happens when gasoline use and carbon emissions drop enough that the revenues aren’t there anymore? Using those revenues for capital projects is one thing, but for operations by the end of the 2020s I bet those revenues will be in free fall. There is also the little thing that even large transit projects don’t reduce emissions by a lot compared to their costs - I remember the stage one O-Train EA had emissions reductions of 34,000 tons a year. It sounds like a big number but is absolutely tiny.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

So your solution is to tax the usual suspects to fully fund transit operations thereby increasing transit usage and reducing the use of personal vehicles. How does that work? In that situation, operational costs would increase while your only source of revenues would decrease. There is an optimal level between subsidizing transit operations and charging a nominal fee. It's definitely not free. The average Torontonian is taxed heavily for the value they get in return. (I don't mean Torontonians necessarily pay high taxes) Taxing drivers is not fair when transit is not an option for many situations. Free fares is not going to increase capacity and efficiency. Another usual argument is that drivers are subsidized through the costs of building and maintaining roads however, those costs to build and maintain that infrastructure won't simply go away once you eliminate personal vehicles.

In Alberta the gas tax more the covers the road costs, so I imagine it would be even more so in places with both higher gas taxes and lower road costs. That argument is imported from the USA and not often examined critically but instead just accepted as fact here.

Now as we move the vehicle fleet over to electric we will have a reckoning at one point where revenue just starts falling off a cliff and new funding mechanisms will be needed.

[Mikemike]

Are you sure? I find Alberta gas tax revenues of almost $2B, and $2.9B roads-and-bridges expenses in the budget, which does not include municipal highway expenses.

Generally, urban streets are paid for with property taxes/provincial transfers from general income. I don’t see a problem paying for 100% of transit costs that way. We already pay roughly 70% that way, what’s the difference?

[Mikemike]

Anyway, I’m in favour of free or at least significantly lower-cost transit. Free off-peak with a $1 or so peak fare would be good.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

Are you sure? I find Alberta gas tax revenues of almost $2B, and $2.9B roads-and-bridges expenses in the budget, which does not include municipal highway expenses.

Generally, urban streets are paid for with property taxes/provincial transfers from general income. I don’t see a problem paying for 100% of transit costs that way. We already pay roughly 70% that way, what’s the difference?

Got to count federal revenues and transfers too. Plus the amortized expense rather than the cash expense (or change in liabilities) especially right now as a very large project is in its most cash heavy year right now.

Alberta may be a special case for municipal streets as the province provides even now larger transfers to the cities than any other province.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

Anyway, I’m in favour of free or at least significantly lower-cost transit. Free off-peak with a $1 or so peak fare would be good.

That would be a good start.

[ssiguy]

Like I said, I don't agree with free transit but I think our transit fares have, generally, risen far faster than inflation and personal incomes over the last 30 years. If we want erveryone to fully participate in our economic, cultural, and social life then it must be available to all.

It is especially imperative in places like Vancouver. Vancouver has astronomical housing prices forcing workers out of the city and hence much further from where they work. This adds to travel time and higher fares. Vancouver has also allowed wholesale housing speculation and displacement near SkyTrain stations kicking out the renters who need transit the most.

I don't think gas taxes are the best way to fund lower transit fares as it pushes all the financial costs onto drivers which is unfair and creates a "war on cars" and "us vs them" political climate. I think an increase in the GST/PST is a fairer way to go where everyone has to contribute and a smaller portion of the funds raised should also go towards improving the road network as the reality is that for many transit is not an option.

[canucklehead2]

I love how y'all are arguing what DOESN'T work but provide no alternatives. Helpful!

[J.OT13]

Question for the Vancouverites. When we were in B.C. last September, we noticed that many stations were lacking in fare gates/entrances, particularly Canada Line stations. Granville is currently lacking, but that is only while the triple escalators from the HBC entrance are being replaced.

I was aware that Translink does not plan to build a second entrance at Broadway-City Hall as part of the Millenium extension, the argument being that most passengers will transfer within the station and not "walk-up". That to me seems very short-sighted considering it is one of the stations that has that congestion issue as it stands.

What are your views on the decision to not build a second entrance at Broadway-City Hall?

What about general lack of entrances and/or fare-gates?

For Toronto, Montréal and Ottawa, have any of you noticed issues on you systems surrounding lack on entrances/fare-gates.

Here are some Daily-Hive articles for more context on the Vancouver situation.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-fare-gate-numbers
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-fare-gates-bottlenecks
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-vancouver-city-centre-station-second-entrance
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/broadway-city-hall-station-entrance-concept

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto has a lot of stations with single exits, though the TTC is slowly adding second exits to a lot of them. I’ve never seen it as an issue though. The problem is more so lack of capacity to get off the platform. Stations like Dundas and king have limited access capacity to the platform, even when they have multiple pathways to street level. It results in long lines to exit the platform in peak times.

[ssiguy]

A sales tax to fund much lower priced transit is a far fairer and more reliable way of raising revenue for transit agencies. It is paid by everyone, including the transit riders who will be the main beneficiaries as gas taxes only hit drivers which is patently unfair as many people need their cars even where decent transit is an option.

The way we currently are trying to reduce emissions is ass-backwards. We charged to much for transit which disproportionately helps the lower/working class the most but then turn around and offer subsidies on expensive electric vehicles designed for the wealthier.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Toronto has a lot of stations with single exits, though the TTC is slowly adding second exits to a lot of them. I’ve never seen it as an issue though. The problem is more so lack of capacity to get off the platform. Stations like Dundas and king have limited access capacity to the platform, even when they have multiple pathways to street level. It results in long lines to exit the platform in peak times.

King has the Melinda entrance which is not well known/used, but apart from that I think most of the really cramped non-transfer stations are the ones with single entrances/exits. Dundas is a good example, as is Queen's Park. St. Andrew, which I use every morning, and which has some of the worst circulation problems, has the triple misfortune of having only one exit, with too few fare gates and sharing its single mezzanine with the primary east-west PATH corridor that crosses University Avenue.

[casper]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Question for the Vancouverites. When we were in B.C. last September, we noticed that many stations were lacking in fare gates/entrances, particularly Canada Line stations. Granville is currently lacking, but that is only while the triple escalators from the HBC entrance are being replaced.

I was aware that Translink does not plan to build a second entrance at Broadway-City Hall as part of the Millenium extension, the argument being that most passengers will transfer within the station and not "walk-up". That to me seems very short-sighted considering it is one of the stations that has that congestion issue as it stands.

What are your views on the decision to not build a second entrance at Broadway-City Hall?

What about general lack of entrances and/or fare-gates?

For Toronto, Montréal and Ottawa, have any of you noticed issues on you systems surrounding lack on entrances/fare-gates.

Here are some Daily-Hive articles for more context on the Vancouver situation.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-fare-gate-numbers
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-fare-gates-bottlenecks
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-vancouver-city-centre-station-second-entrance
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/broadway-city-hall-station-entrance-concept

Unlike other cities Metro Vancouver has been more than willing to go back and expand or reconfigure stations. The major stations such as Broadway and Metrotown has gone through major retrofits and include multiple entrances.
Even some secondary stations such as the new Joyce-Collingwood station rebuild is a good example.

The single entrance thing is simply a starting point. A number of the broadway stations will likely over the coming year be absorbed into high rise buildings built over them.

As for the lack of fare gates, again those are easy to add. Most stations have glass partitions that could be removed to make way for more fare gates when and if needed.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Question for the Vancouverites. When we were in B.C. last September, we noticed that many stations were lacking in fare gates/entrances, particularly Canada Line stations. Granville is currently lacking, but that is only while the triple escalators from the HBC entrance are being replaced.

I was aware that Translink does not plan to build a second entrance at Broadway-City Hall as part of the Millenium extension, the argument being that most passengers will transfer within the station and not "walk-up". That to me seems very short-sighted considering it is one of the stations that has that congestion issue as it stands.

What are your views on the decision to not build a second entrance at Broadway-City Hall?

What about general lack of entrances and/or fare-gates?

For Toronto, Montréal and Ottawa, have any of you noticed issues on you systems surrounding lack on entrances/fare-gates.

I use the system regularly and don’t worry about this problem. In the future changes will need to be made as ridership grows but for now there is rarely anyone ahead of me trying to get through the same gate, other than a handful of people at busy times. The delay to me is seconds and not something that causes frustration.

Crowded trains during rush hour are a greater discomfort, which I deal with by usually travelling at other times.