The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[manny_santos]

I’ve been in California for almost a week, and I must say we in Canada are spoiled by good, frequent rapid transit in our big cities. Even in San Francisco, which arguably has one of the best transit systems in the US, frequencies on the BART can be comically low on the branch lines, and on Saturday evening at 9pm I arrived at a BART station only to find it locked up for the night. And then there’s LA, where some frequencies are as low as 20 minutes; however to their credit they have built a heck of a lot in the past 32 years, going from no metro system at all to what they have now. Still, for a metropolis of 13 million, it’s very limited.

Another observation from SF is how few people were using BART, even going into downtown on a weekday at 8am. I realize many people work from home, but I’ve seen Vancouver’s SkyTrain at the same time on a weekday in the past month and there’s no comparison.

Interestingly LA’s newest LRT is not unlike the Eglinton Crosstown - grade-separated in sections and even above ground like SkyTrain, and yet with level crossings with railway crossing lights in other areas, like Edmonton’s LRT.

LA fares right now are only $1.75. This is the cheapest metro system outside Mexico that I’ve used.

I’ll definitely visit this state again, I just found my public transit observations compared to Canada to be interesting.

[MalcolmTucker]

BART is an odd duck, it is most like the proposed GO ALRT. Or like if REM kept commuter rail operating hours. Local SF transit-the Muni- is easy to overlook as a visitor, even if it makes way more sense to use given BART's frequency issues.

Crazy thing about BART is even with the low frequency much of the time, the transbay tube is at or near capacity. Wonder if they desperately need a renewed signalling system or if the tube for safety reasons can only have one train per direction in it at a time. Today the tube can and does/did handle 28,000 ppdph, but has massive trains, making it feel much less busy (210 metres!).

[Nouvellecosse]

^ That is true but only part of the story. It isn't just that the trains are long, but also that they tend to be arranged to emphasize comfort over capacity since it's a long distance commuter service that reaches an equivalent distance from downtown SF as Hamilton to Union. So you want a service that's not too crowded and has lots of seating. In fact, when BART was first planned, the intention was that every rider would be seated. There used to be only 2 doors per side per car (with cars basically the same size as TTC subway cars which have 4 doors per side) and with the recent rolling stock upgrade in the last decade they still only have three. If you filled them as full as a typical urban metro the dwell times would be too long for it to actually improve capacity.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I’ve been in California for almost a week, and I must say we in Canada are spoiled by good, frequent rapid transit in our big cities. Even in San Francisco, which arguably has one of the best transit systems in the US, frequencies on the BART can be comically low on the branch lines, and on Saturday evening at 9pm I arrived at a BART station only to find it locked up for the night.

Another observation from SF is how few people were using BART, even going into downtown on a weekday at 8am. I realize many people work from home, but I’ve seen Vancouver’s SkyTrain at the same time on a weekday in the past month and there’s no comparison.

I agree with what you are saying but I will add a couple caveats.

The SF BART may seem underutilized and not near as busy as SkyTrain but one has to remember that BART trains are MASSIVE at 200 meters so they may have as many people on the train but the trains aren't nearly as crowded due to this.

Also BART is by every definition a grade separated Metro but functions more like a suburban rail system. Frequencies are much lower due to serving so many suburban areas and only where the lines converge at Oakland do the trains run at high Metro level frequencies. This is why the Trans-Bay Tube is having capacity issues.

BART also is still very much for suburbanites getting to the city but is not used by San Franciscans themselves because there is absolutely no fare integration between MUNI and BART. This is much like GO. It's great for suburbanites trying to get to the city but is completely useless for Torontonians themselves...........it's just too damn expensive. If you are Toronto city, you pay a MINIMUM of twice as much to go the same distance.

[swimmer_spe]

Visit Boston if you want good transit. It impressed me how good it was.
Another is San Diego.Their trolley runs good enough to be useful.

[Acajack]

Tramway project in Quebec City gets green light from the province.

There was a bit of a skirmish with the city but it now it seems like the government has given in to their demands. There are no conditions (imposed on the city or its vision of the project) associated with Quebec's approval.

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2022/04/06/la-caq-donne-le-feu-vert-au-projet-de-tramway-a-quebec-1

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Visit Boston if you want good transit. It impressed me how good it was.
Another is San Diego. Their trolley runs good enough to be useful.

San Diego Trolley ridership: 117,700 daily.

I've always been somewhat baffled by the low ridership of US transit projects. Is it cultural, built form, poor transit service, or something we don't know about?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

I've always been somewhat baffled by the low ridership of US transit projects. Is it cultural, built form, poor transit service, or something we don't know about?

I wonder how much of it is due to the difference in funding; for all the talk of Americans not spending money on transit some of their agencies are incredibly well-funded by things like sales taxes. So you end up with a lot of white elephant projects because ridership doesn't matter as long as you have political support.

Meanwhile, most Canadian agencies are only funded by taxpayer grants and fares so they (at least up till the recent wave of LRT projects) have been more focused on bang-for-the-buck and have decent fare-box recovery ratios.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Steeles already has bus service (it's called the TTC), and I don't think YRT is allowed to run buses eastbound on Steeles because it's in Toronto and they're legally not allowed unless the City of Toronto allows them to (minutiae like this - do you know whether the York/Toronto boundary is the exact middle of Steeles or whether it's on the north side or the south side?).

I will agree that VIVA Purple's routing has always seemed to be a development service rather than a people service. If GO integration was the goal, why not move Unionville GO to Hwy 7?

After you get a basic grid of service is where the disagreements begin ...



I can post random TTC ridership numbers in a 5.5 km line and claim that frequency -> ridership. I wouldn't have made a strong case.

Where would you propose putting an E-W bus route between Steeles and Rutherford? Centre and Hwy 7 both have routes already (no, the diversion onto Bathurst still counts as E-W. There's no advantage to running in a transit wasteland).



YRT's service area is large, so the waiting time doubles (on average) each time you make a transfer, which will happen more often with the large service area.



Eliminate the silly milk runs that YRT loves so much.

Here's a list of possible contenders for elimination, courtesy of Urban Toronto: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/york-region-transit-viva-service-thread.7055/post-1796821



False premise.

The frequency-to-ridership ratio is not a straight line. If you increase frequency from 60 minutes to 45 minutes, you probably won't see much ridership change.

If you double frequency from 20 minutes to 10 minutes, people will start using your service, because it is now convenient. You will see the greatest increases in the 10 - 20 minute range, because lower headways and you're mainly increasing capacity, and increase headways and your service isn't convenient.

You're using math words to try and refute my case. Nice try.



Let's get every route on 2 hour frequencies, then no one will use the service and it will be faster, right?

You're making the mistake of comparing the new transit service to the old transit service and assuming riders will make choices based on that. Riders will compare the transit service (at whatever level it is at) to driving a car.

Also, you were saying that my scenario would not create ridership, and now frequency will increase ridership and that's a bad thing?



It won't increase ridership which is a bad thing, then it will increase ridership and that's a negative consequence, then it won't increase ridership ... with no explanation as to why any of these scenarios will happen. You still haven't told me why people with a car will use a low frequency service.



I fail to understand the bolded section. You think ridership growth is a bad thing because it slows down buses?

That being said, I agree that basic improvements is better than rapid transit until there is enough demand in the general area (including feeder buses like on the TTC) to warrant the capacity. Painted bus lanes (like on Eglinton East) should do until then if you need speed.



You said that "Steeles Ave, the busiest transit corridor in York Region", implying a comparison with every route in YRT. You say that Steeles is higher ridership than any YRT route, I offer explanation why Steeles so busy, you try to change the topic. How convenient.

Let's summarize my position: VIVA was a waste of money, higher frequency is not a waste of money.

Change the topic? Convenient?

Where the fuck was I comparing Viva to the TTC Steeles bus? Where? Tell me. Show me. I still fail to see it. Maybe I am too fucking stupid or blind or something, but I still don't see any fucking comparison.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

San Diego Trolley ridership: 117,700 daily.

I've always been somewhat baffled by the low ridership of US transit projects. Is it cultural, built form, poor transit service, or something we don't know about?

Originally Posted by accord1999

I wonder how much of it is due to the difference in funding; for all the talk of Americans not spending money on transit some of their agencies are incredibly well-funded by things like sales taxes. So you end up with a lot of white elephant projects because ridership doesn't matter as long as you have political support.

Meanwhile, most Canadian agencies are only funded by taxpayer grants and fares so they (at least up till the recent wave of LRT projects) have been more focused on bang-for-the-buck and have decent fare-box recovery ratios.

Transit in the USA is seen as for the poor in most places. They also may make it such that it isn't as convenient as it should be. Jacksonville had you pay each boarding; no free transfers.

[ssiguy]

^ I think you nailed it on the head.

In the US {with very few exceptions} transit is viewed as a social service like food stamps while on the rest of the planet it is viewed as an essential service like police/fire. Due to this, transit is viewed as a poor man's option and hence also a black one. Transit is also the anti-thesis of the American dream of individualism.

The US also has a problem with ridership because they spend a fortune on their new projects but then provide little operational funds. Some of their new rapid transit lines have ridiculously low frequencies taking the "rapid" out of "rapid" transit. They also usually have very poor bus/connecting service so using the lines often requires a car to get to the stations. This is why so many US systems have stations with massive park & ride garages even in the cities themselves.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

^ I think you nailed it on the head.

In the US {with very few exceptions} transit is viewed as a social service like food stamps while on the rest of the planet it is viewed as an essential service like police/fire. Due to this, transit is viewed as a poor man's option and hence also a black one. Transit is also the anti-thesis of the American dream of individualism.

The US also has a problem with ridership because they spend a fortune on their new projects but then provide little operational funds. Some of their new rapid transit lines have ridiculously low frequencies taking the "rapid" out of "rapid" transit. They also usually have very poor bus/connecting service so using the lines often requires a car to get to the stations. This is why so many US systems have stations with massive park & ride garages even in the cities themselves.

I really noticed that in LA. From where I was staying, I had to take an Uber to get to the nearest station. And I was the only white person on board, despite being in a mostly white neighborhood.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Transit in the USA is seen as for the poor in most places. They also may make it such that it isn't as convenient as it should be. Jacksonville had you pay each boarding; no free transfers.

I think it’s run that way in Canada to some extent too, at least outside the big cities. London has long treated its transit system as a social service, though it has a great transfer system.

[davidivivid]

New promotional/informational video released by the City.

• Video Link

[FrAnKs]

Québec City's Tramway.
Image courtesy : Ville de Québec
https://www.journaldequebec.com/2022/04/13/tramway-lacces-a-laurier-en-auto-chamboule

[Reecemartin]

Contracts are signed and Toronto is getting electric regional rail with European signalling and it’s even better than we expected! Check out my latest video (hope you like the new animations!)

https://youtu.be/_XOXAY3rPzk

[biguc]

That's awesome. I love how excited you are.

[someone123]

That was clearly needed for the GTA. I don't know the details of what's required to get speeds and frequencies up on all of those routes but I have a feeling that the level of investment was probably a no-brainer (and a tiny fraction of the money spent on other areas like federal-level transfers) even though it took so long.

It puts the old era of minor subway extensions happening every 5-10 years into perspective. That was woefully inadequate for how much growth is occurring. And of course many Canadian cities are still stuck in that mode or worse, "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" transportation planning (e.g. population grows at 2% per year, we don't want new roads, BRT will save us ).

[niwell]

There have been a lot of improvements to the GO network over the past decade ranging from relatively minor to quite extensive that are coming to fruition and letting this happen. It all seemed to kind of fly under the radar instead of through a big Master Plan which may be the best way to go about things here.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by niwell

There have been a lot of improvements to the GO network over the past decade ranging from relatively minor to quite extensive that are coming to fruition and letting this happen. It all seemed to kind of fly under the radar instead of through a big Master Plan which may be the best way to go about things here.

From a political perspective, impressive maps and photo ops with tunnel boring machines are desirable. From a transportation perspective I wonder how much of the improvements are really just a bunch of nuts and bolts level changes. Eliminate at-grade crossings, electrification, signaling improvements, nicer rolling stock, improve pedestrian access and feeder buses, and so on.