The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Well, I wasn't expecting the Northlander to come back with fancy new trains!

Good for Northern Ontario. That said, it's still going to be a slow journey with the same capacity restrictions. I wonder how much it would cost to speed up the service with better fixed capital. I'm not expecting fancy stuff, but some sidings here and there along the CN Bala sub and maybe sprucing up the track along the ONR-owned portion could really help.

In terms of services, I kind of wish they had ordered more than 3 trainsets. Maybe 5, and then run a twice daily Muskoka-Toronto service (Toronto-Gravenhurst-Bracebridge-Huntsville), or offer other services within Northern Ontario, like Sudbury-North Bay.

Still, this is much more than I expected, and we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Most of us fully expected a refurbishment of the old equipment rotting in Cochrane.

What I'd like to see on top of the Northlander returning is:
A daily between Toronto and North Bay
A daily between Toronto and Sudbury
A 2 a day between Sudbury and North Bay.
A Daily between SSM and Toronto through North Bay
And, extra service on Friday evenings in the summer for the cottage runs.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Most of us fully expected a refurbishment of the old equipment rotting in Cochrane.

What I'd like to see on top of the Northlander returning is:
A daily between Toronto and North Bay
A daily between Toronto and Sudbury
A 2 a day between Sudbury and North Bay.
A Daily between SSM and Toronto through North Bay
And, extra service on Friday evenings in the summer for the cottage runs.

At one point, the schedule was a morning departure from North Bay to Toronto at the same time there was a morning departure from Timmins to Toronto around 7:00. The North Bay - Toronto train would return north late morning but continue north to Timmins around and arrive at 23:00. The morning train from Timmins would depart Toronto around 18:00 and arrive in North Bay around 23:30. One train would travel south via Orillia and Barrie while the other would travel south via Beaverton and Richmond Hill. Both would take opposite routes on the return trip. This gave both routes a train in each direction and avoided turning trains since CN would not allow cab forward operation on their tracks, mostly due to rock cuts through the shield between Washago and Gravenhurst. This also allowed the 3 TEE train sets to be cycled through the North Bay shops. This gave the North Bay to Washago twice daily service southbound and northbound and once daily service between North Bay and Timmins. Keep in mind that the joint ONR/Via(ex CNR) Northland also ran on a daily basis to Hearst which was cut back to Kapuskasing.

I do think your SSM - Toronto via North Bay has some merit. It is currently taking the Canadian over 7 hours on average to cover Toronto - Sudbury via Parry Sound. Routing a train via North Bay might be possible in the same time frame with added ridership. The caveat is that upgrades would be required between Washago to North Bay, North Bay to Sudbury and Sudbury to SSM but there is little freight interference on these routes. Re-establishing Washago to Barrie and using Metrolinx to Toronto would add addition ridership.

[ssiguy]

Something weird is happening in the US in regards to transit fares and I think it could do more harm than good.There has been a push for free transit in the US to help reduce inequity and open new job opportunities for those who may not have them due to the transit expense. Kansas City is the biggest city to now offer free transit but now some of the big boys on the block namely Washington DC & Boston.

It was relatively easy for KC to make the move because it cost the city very little due to having such poor ridership that fares only made up 10% of revenues. Boston & DC on the other hand have very high ridership levels {at least by US standards} so the impact on their revenue and hence the taxpayer's ability to fund it will be much more problematic.

So what Washington {and on a few routes in Boston} is doing is making the bus service free but not the trains. Their logic is that poorer people tend to bus riders which statistically is true but what happens when they have to transfer onto the train? For those who need cheaper/free fares it essentially means they are stuck with an inferior, less comfortable, and much slower service than higher incomes. What's more this is a very bad use of funding as the buses may become busier but they will have no extra ability to increase service and at the same time people avoiding the trains due to the higher fares mean ridership will fall on the Metro leading to reduced revenue and hence a cutback in service. Perhaps I'm missing something but to me it seems like the antithesis of good transit planning. It's good hearted but wrong headed.

Curious what yo guys think of such a system and free/reduced fares in general.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Curious what yo guys think of such a system and free/reduced fares in general.

You can kind of get away with free transit in a place where supply outstrips demand. Kansas City is one example of that, although I would argue that the transit supply there, and in many other American cities, is so bad that few people but the least time-sensitive and most money-sensitive (i.e. the poorest) segment of the population would really demand it. But most Canadian cities have the opposite problem, even post-Covid; there is a critical lack of supply to meet existing demand. In our cities, free transit would have the same effect as free driving: you shift the burden from money to time, and everybody - whether rich or poor - is worse off.

That said, I think fare structures really need to be tinkered in Canada. For starters, monthly passes should be cheaper to encourage people to use transit during low demand periods for non-commuting trips, and in an era of smart payment, we should do away with arbitrary fare boundaries and charge by some combination of distance and time of day for all trips. I think the poorest people should qualify for reduced fares and even free transit, if necessary.

One other consideration about free transit is that if people walk on and off transit vehicles without tapping a card, you don't collect valuable data on which routes or route combinations are in-demand and you can't really plan service as effectively. I guess you could creep on them by monitoring the GPS in their phones or through some kind of facial recognition on the bus, but that opens up other cans of worms.

[someone123]

I think the elephant in the room is that roads and parking are almost never priced correctly and so it's an uphill battle to price transit correctly. Around here we moved in the wrong direction by removing what remaining tolls there were (NDP government too, although I guess user pay can be considered a traditionally conservative model).

Not sure how true it is but a lot of students with u-pass type systems complain that they are taken for granted as riders because they basically pay a fixed fee and cannot opt out of the service, no matter how poor it is. It's a real argument to say that by making services for some groups "free" you take away their power to vote with their wallets. I guess you could fix this by offering some kind of fare card rebate or funding scheme that ties the amount paid to the transit agency to actual use.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Something weird is happening in the US in regards to transit fares and I think it could do more harm than good.There has been a push for free transit in the US to help reduce inequity and open new job opportunities for those who may not have them due to the transit expense. Kansas City is the biggest city to now offer free transit but now some of the big boys on the block namely Washington DC & Boston.

It was relatively easy for KC to make the move because it cost the city very little due to having such poor ridership that fares only made up 10% of revenues. Boston & DC on the other hand have very high ridership levels {at least by US standards} so the impact on their revenue and hence the taxpayer's ability to fund it will be much more problematic.

So what Washington {and on a few routes in Boston} is doing is making the bus service free but not the trains. Their logic is that poorer people tend to bus riders which statistically is true but what happens when they have to transfer onto the train? For those who need cheaper/free fares it essentially means they are stuck with an inferior, less comfortable, and much slower service than higher incomes. What's more this is a very bad use of funding as the buses may become busier but they will have no extra ability to increase service and at the same time people avoiding the trains due to the higher fares mean ridership will fall on the Metro leading to reduced revenue and hence a cutback in service. Perhaps I'm missing something but to me it seems like the antithesis of good transit planning. It's good hearted but wrong headed.

Curious what yo guys think of such a system and free/reduced fares in general.

How much did you pay to the road agency to drive down that street or highway? Outside of actual tolls, the answer really is zero, as no dollar amount is connected to the roads.

I imagine that this will highlight the areas that need higher order transit and make the case that the planning departments have been trying to make.

This can be a way to go more carbon neutral for transportation in Canada.Per person, a bus is a lower carbon footprint than most cars.

I wonder which city in Canada will be the first.

[ssiguy]

Tallinn Estonia was the first major Western city that brought in free fares. Like all European cities, it had a good system with high ridership and served approx 500,000 people.

Since bringing in free fares, transit ridership has increased but at the same time commuter patterns haven't. What they are finding is that the people are simply taking the transit for much shorter trips...............they have basically just providing transit to people that otherwise would have simply walked or taken their bikes. While nearly every other city is seeing an increase in bike usage, Tallinn has actually seen the rate decline What's more, many traditional transit riders actually don't like it.

Yes, they are saving money but now getting an inferior service. The system is now slower as more people get on & off instead of walking a few blocks like they use to. It has also led to more packed trains & buses but they have no money to increase service. In fact some services have had to reduce frequency because they have had such a drop in revenue that they can't maintain them. Tallinn already had quite an affordable transit system which proves that people will take the system and pay for it {within reason} if they are getting good service for their fares.

In the US, one of the key issues is also crime. People feel less safe on the system {whether fairly or not} because they now feel that the service has become a drug transfer centre and the homeless will ride it for no reason than to get out of inclement weather. This also has the added problem of reinforcing the notion that transit is nothing more than a social service and not an essential one making it far less appealing to people who have other options ie driving.

I believe in reduced fares for everyone and targeted free fares geared towards particular groups ie post-secondary students, disabled, low income, seniors, and those under 18 but a blanket free fare system seems to create more problems than it solves.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Something weird is happening in the US in regards to transit fares and I think it could do more harm than good.There has been a push for free transit in the US to help reduce inequity and open new job opportunities for those who may not have them due to the transit expense. Kansas City is the biggest city to now offer free transit but now some of the big boys on the block namely Washington DC & Boston.

It was relatively easy for KC to make the move because it cost the city very little due to having such poor ridership that fares only made up 10% of revenues. Boston & DC on the other hand have very high ridership levels {at least by US standards} so the impact on their revenue and hence the taxpayer's ability to fund it will be much more problematic.

So what Washington {and on a few routes in Boston} is doing is making the bus service free but not the trains. Their logic is that poorer people tend to bus riders which statistically is true but what happens when they have to transfer onto the train? For those who need cheaper/free fares it essentially means they are stuck with an inferior, less comfortable, and much slower service than higher incomes. What's more this is a very bad use of funding as the buses may become busier but they will have no extra ability to increase service and at the same time people avoiding the trains due to the higher fares mean ridership will fall on the Metro leading to reduced revenue and hence a cutback in service. Perhaps I'm missing something but to me it seems like the antithesis of good transit planning. It's good hearted but wrong headed.

Curious what yo guys think of such a system and free/reduced fares in general.

I like the idea of free transit in general, however my biggest concern is where the funding is going to come from, and whether this may lead to reduced expansions to existing networks.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

At one point, the schedule was a morning departure from North Bay to Toronto at the same time there was a morning departure from Timmins to Toronto around 7:00. The North Bay - Toronto train would return north late morning but continue north to Timmins around and arrive at 23:00. The morning train from Timmins would depart Toronto around 18:00 and arrive in North Bay around 23:30. One train would travel south via Orillia and Barrie while the other would travel south via Beaverton and Richmond Hill. Both would take opposite routes on the return trip. This gave both routes a train in each direction and avoided turning trains since CN would not allow cab forward operation on their tracks, mostly due to rock cuts through the shield between Washago and Gravenhurst. This also allowed the 3 TEE train sets to be cycled through the North Bay shops. This gave the North Bay to Washago twice daily service southbound and northbound and once daily service between North Bay and Timmins. Keep in mind that the joint ONR/Via(ex CNR) Northland also ran on a daily basis to Hearst which was cut back to Kapuskasing.

I do think your SSM - Toronto via North Bay has some merit. It is currently taking the Canadian over 7 hours on average to cover Toronto - Sudbury via Parry Sound. Routing a train via North Bay might be possible in the same time frame with added ridership. The caveat is that upgrades would be required between Washago to North Bay, North Bay to Sudbury and Sudbury to SSM but there is little freight interference on these routes. Re-establishing Washago to Barrie and using Metrolinx to Toronto would add addition ridership.

Anything connecting North Bay and Sudbury could use the existing CP station in Sudbury, which is used by VIA for its White River route.

Which leads me to another thought - if VIA goes down the road of privatization, I could see ONR assuming the Sudbury-White River train route, which would have opportunities for service expansion towards other cities including North Bay.

[Doady]

Problem with US transit is the excessive focus on capital spending for expensive rail projects and little spending on operating expenses for buses to feed into the stations, resulting in incomplete transit networks. Small operating budgets is the root of the problem in the US and no more revenue from fares would only make it worse.

I saw it all the time when Mississauga finally stopped growing, when the growth of the bus system finally caught up to match the extreme sprawl. They fill in a gap in the network, extend a bus route, add a new bus route to connect to other routes, and the ridership explodes, even as the fares increase. Even with population decline and COVID and work-from-home and delays from LRT construction, the ridership on some bus routes here is starting to get out of control (e.g. Derry Road).

If US cities started funding buses instead of rail and free transit, they would have ridership to match even the most sprawling Canadian cities. If the nearest bus stop is too far away from walking distance, then it doesn't matter how cheap the fares are. Even frequency doesn't matter that much, it's all about filling in the gaps in the network.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Doady

Problem with US transit is the excessive focus on capital spending for expensive rail projects and little spending on operating expenses for buses to feed into the stations, resulting in incomplete transit networks. Small operating budgets is the root of the problem in the US and no more revenue from fares would only make it worse.

Transportation needs to be considered in bigger picture terms than just mode by mode (or mode vs. mode). I highlighted what I think is a key word in your post.

I don't know if we do a good job of network thinking here, but I feel like it's certainly better than in most places in the U.S.

[someone123]

Canada has lower car ownership and worse traffic so it's going to be easier to get people to ride buses here, all else being equal. The US has a lot of social issues too that in many cities I think are probably more of a factor than the bus planners there not understanding where to put the routes.

I'd also argue that climate may be even more of an issue in a lot of cities there than in a lot of Canadian cities. Atlanta or Phoenix are not great places to wait for the bus for a lot of the year.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Anything connecting North Bay and Sudbury could use the existing CP station in Sudbury, which is used by VIA for its White River route.

Which leads me to another thought - if VIA goes down the road of privatization, I could see ONR assuming the Sudbury-White River train route, which would have opportunities for service expansion towards other cities including North Bay.

They don't own any of that track. What incentive would there be? The tracks north of North Bay are provincially owned.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by someone123

Canada has lower car ownership and worse traffic so it's going to be easier to get people to ride buses here, all else being equal. The US has a lot of social issues too that in many cities I think are probably more of a factor than the bus planners there not understanding where to put the routes.

I'd also argue that climate may be even more of an issue in a lot of cities there than in a lot of Canadian cities. Atlanta or Phoenix are not great places to wait for the bus for a lot of the year.

I will agree that waiting for transit (and riding transit) in the extreme heat (and especially humidity) is worse than in the cold. I hate taking transit here in Japan during July and August. I tend to drive a lot more during those months.

[Doady]

What are "social issues" in the US? The higher income inequality making people in US less able to afford a car? Anyways, I didn't say anything about the incompetence of bus planners in US. I was talking about lack of funding. More routes, not the location of the routes.

Traffic is not an excuse considering the small size of Canadian cities. And of course buses are more affected by traffic problems than light rail and subway trains are.

Las Vegas is near Phoenix, same climate, bus-only system instead of 45km of light rail, but almost twice the ridership of Phoenix and one of the leaders of transit in the US. See also Dallas, the largest light rail system but one of the worst ridership numbers in USA. Dallas saw a big ridership increase in 2019 after they implemented a major expansion of bus service. Bus ridership increased by a whopping 31% and rail ridership actually decreased by 3%. Increased bus ridership, decreased rail ridership. Think about that. See other Texas cities with bus-only transit systems, San Antonio and Austin, same climate, 50% higher ridership per capita than Dallas.

If you look at US cities with the highest ridership, the common thread between them is high bus ridership, not high rail ridership, regardless of traffic or climate or "social issues". Rail is merely for increased capacity, solving the problem of high ridership, not the problem of low ridership. An empty bus passing by empty bus stops is going to be really fast no matter what, so an LRV is not going to be any faster.

[someone123]

I'm not really disagreeing with any of your points, I just think that these cities are often different in important ways and the similarity between Canadian and US cities is limited. I am not sure Las Vegas is comparable to Phoenix. Las Vegas is really a special case in the US due to its geographically concentrated tourism and employment.

The broader social issues I alluded to were that buses are often seen as a last resort service for poor people. Due to higher car ownership a lot of people who would take the bus in Canada don't in the US. And the US is generally higher crime with more no-go zones and, rightly or wrongly, concerns about associations between transit and crime. So sometimes opposition to transit routing has nothing to do with maximizing ridership. People see the rail projects as being "for them" (revitalize some neighbourhoods, take white collar workers to desk jobs) and the buses as being a different service "for poor people".

Even around here I must say I often avoid the buses and would not want to live in a "bus area" where you have to go bus -> train to get somewhere on transit. The bus service is often really bad in practice due to congestion, it's just less comfortable, some of the routes have sketchier people (e.g. one of the Main Street buses I was on stopped and they booted everybody because there was a used needle rolling around on the floor), and so on. Politically I am somewhat pro train even if it's not 100% ridership maximizing.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They don't own any of that track. What incentive would there be? The tracks north of North Bay are provincially owned.

Neither does VIA, but they have continued to run the service, which serves some isolated communities with no road access. The CP tracks between North Bay and SSM are also on the verge of abandonment, so they could become available for other use.

ONR don’t own the tracks south of North Bay, yet they’ve managed to negotiate a deal with CN for use of those tracks.

[ssiguy]

Yes, it's very true that the US has built all these new transit lines and get absolutely no return on investment. All they have done is switch bus riders to train riders but have not enticed many new riders although there are certainly some exceptions. They spend gobs on building the lines and then provide no money to run them.

One of the problems of modern transit development is that they are now built to encourage development instead of what they were originally for, to move people. Transit agencies are NOT there is encourage development but rather to provide an effective transportation service.

[thebasketballgeek]

I think the general ridership difference if I had to pinpoint comes down to the land use adjacent to the major arterials. The US does a few things very stupidly in regards to transit.

1) Their suburbs generally have minimal investment in their transit agencies and are very unlikely to have bud service in most parts of their municipality. This means it is that much harder to get commuters from outside the main population centre. My relatives live in a suburb called Bordentown in New Jersey right by the Turnpike and they are legitimately trapped in their neighborhood without a car. Believe me I tried to use other modes of transportation but for the most part it’s impossible. Compared to my current suburb in Winnipeg which was the edge of the city about a decade ago I have access to 2 different bus routes with 1 express route during rush hour. I only have to wait at most 10 minutes for a bus during rush and 30 minutes in off-peak hours. Not ideal but much better then absolutely nothing.

2) The land use on US arterials for mid-sized and even larger cities cities is absolutely atrocious. Generally these arterials in the US are just surface parking lots mixed in with commercial and industry. Most Canadian cities at least put mid-rise apartment buildings and decent density residential. Because the arterials usually have the best bus service there’s more ridership in Canadian cities as more people have access to busses with good headways and are more inclined to ride them.

3) The access to bus stops on said arterials is a slap in the face to people with disabilities. Canada isn’t amazing at making transit accessible to all users but they do a hell of a lot better job then the US. Bus stops with no sidewalk access, next to roads going 80+ km/h, and with multiple obstructions/incomplete infrastructure plays a huge part in the poor perception of bus service in the US.

4) Canadians are more exposed to public transit at an early age. My relatives in the US have rarely, if ever taken public transportation. I myself have been riding the bus on a semi-frequent basis since middle school. This again is due to Canadian cities planning around secondary schools much better then the US. I noticed at least here in Winnipeg that middle schools and high schools are adjacent to middle housing, apartment blocks, grocery stores, shopping centres, and of course sheltered bus routes. When you organize a community around education people naturally gravitate to higher public transportation use. I think it’s because parents are more likely to let kids hop on the bus and not have to worry about them getting to school. Anyways, the older one gets without experiencing another form of transportation, the more likely they are to stick to their car-oriented ways.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not really disagreeing with any of your points, I just think that these cities are often different in important ways and the similarity between Canadian and US cities is limited. I am not sure Las Vegas is comparable to Phoenix. Las Vegas is really a special case in the US due to its geographically concentrated tourism and employment.

The broader social issues I alluded to were that buses are often seen as a last resort service for poor people. Due to higher car ownership a lot of people who would take the bus in Canada don't in the US. And the US is generally higher crime with more no-go zones and, rightly or wrongly, concerns about associations between transit and crime. So sometimes opposition to transit routing has nothing to do with maximizing ridership. People see the rail projects as being "for them" (revitalize some neighbourhoods, take white collar workers to desk jobs) and the buses as being a different service "for poor people".

Even around here I must say I often avoid the buses and would not want to live in a "bus area" where you have to go bus -> train to get somewhere on transit. The bus service is often really bad in practice due to congestion, it's just less comfortable, some of the routes have sketchier people (e.g. one of the Main Street buses I was on stopped and they booted everybody because there was a used needle rolling around on the floor), and so on. Politically I am somewhat pro train even if it's not 100% ridership maximizing.

Yes, transit seems more of a vehicle for the poor in the USA. I remember being shocked at how impressive LA's rail system was but it felt totally sketch compared to those in Canada. You can see why those with the means would rather drive.