[Rainforest]

Speaking of passenger capacity, has anyone run the models of how GO-RER coming to 3 of the GO stations that this LRT line will touch will affect ridership?

I'm wondering if frequent electric service all day coupled with some kind of fare integration won't steal ridership from the route.

That's an interesting question; the impact of GO-RER might go both ways.

On one hand, downtown-bound commuters don't need to take Eg East to Kennedy. They can use GO instead.

On the other hand, some commuters will take Eg East to Guildwood GO or Eglinton GO, while without a good GO-RER they wouldn't take public transit at all.

My guess is that GO-RER will make Eg East peak ridership (approaching Kennedy) go down, while the total daily ridership will go up because the eastern sections will see a better usage.

 

[Rainforest]

What bothers me is that reports produced by essentially the same school of urban design differ so much. 16 years ago when designing Transit City, they were all unicorns and rainbows about each of the selected LRT lines, including Eg East.

The recent report says Eg East LRT is of questionable value. Maybe, beats BRT by having a greater capacity limit, which may or may not be needed. But no speed advantage. And the density advantage is in question, too.

What changed since 2007, and which report I should doubt? I am inclined to doubt both of them, and assume that the old report oversold Eg East LRT, while the new report undersells this project. In other words, the actual benefit of this LRT might be greater than the recent report suggests.

 

[ARG1]

What bothers me is that reports produced by essentially the same school of urban design differ so much. 16 years ago when designing Transit City, they were all unicorns and rainbows about each of the selected LRT lines, including Eg East.

The recent report says Eg East LRT is of questionable value. Maybe, beats BRT by having a greater capacity limit, which may or may not be needed. But no speed advantage. And the density advantage is in question, too.

What changed since 2007, and which report I should doubt? I am inclined to doubt both of them, and assume that the old report oversold Eg East LRT, while the new report undersells this project. In other words, the actual benefit of this LRT might be greater than the recent report suggests.

I fail to see why the new report would undersell the benefits, considering the people in charge very much want it to happen. Transit City oversold the benefits of LRT because the people in charge had a vested interest in pushing their ideas forward. Similarly, John Tory and the City is championing Eglinton East and is pushing through with the project despite the bad report, so you'd think they'd cater the metrics to favour LRT.

 

[Cobra]

That's an interesting question; the impact of GO-RER might go both ways.

On one hand, downtown-bound commuters don't need to take Eg East to Kennedy. They can use GO instead.

On the other hand, some commuters will take Eg East to Guildwood GO or Eglinton GO, while without a good GO-RER they wouldn't take public transit at all.

My guess is that GO-RER will make Eg East peak ridership (approaching Kennedy) go down, while the total daily ridership will go up because the eastern sections will see a better usage.

All great points and all of this can easily be handled by BRT with infrastructure like Viva with priority lights operating with longer and frequent buses. Best to spend a bit more to make the BRT attractive and fast enough to really get people to use it which would still end up significantly cheaper than a slow LRT where you'd still freeze your private parts off in the winter (because we don't do heated shelters)

 

[SashaLemon]

It has the same ridership levels as Vancouver despite only serving a population half it's size.

Not to be too pedantic but population does not matter when its "percentage of commutes by public transit".

 

[Rainforest]

Not to be too pedantic but population does not matter when its "percentage of commutes by public transit".

I have to disagree. It is easier to establish a well-used transit system when you have more population. With more available riders you can run transit vehicles at a greater frequency, which makes transit more convenient and attracts more riders who otherwise would drive, or would not travel at all.

Thus if two cities differ in size but achieved the same percentage of commutes by public transit, the smaller city should be considered more successful, as it has achieved the same % of ridership against greater odds.

 

[Rainforest]

I fail to see why the new report would undersell the benefits, considering the people in charge very much want it to happen. Transit City oversold the benefits of LRT because the people in charge had a vested interest in pushing their ideas forward. Similarly, John Tory and the City is championing Eglinton East and is pushing through with the project despite the bad report, so you'd think they'd cater the metrics to favour LRT.

John Tory was "championing" Eglinton East by keeping it on the to-do list, but he did exactly nothing to advance that project. For his SmartTrack and for SSE, he at least made some feeble efforts, but Eglinton East didn't get even that.

The rest will be my guesses. People who manage the planning are administrators, rather than lefty ideologues. Any administrator is happy when things run smoothly and no controversy emerges.

When those administrators had lefty ideologues (Miller / Giambrone) as their bosses, and a fair chance of getting the funding for the proposed LRT lines, the smooth outcome could be achieved by confirming the benefits of LRT, in every corridor that was considered.

Now the same administrators have no clear directions from the City Hall, they know that the province (Doug) isn't in love with LRTs, and the city public is less enthusiastic about LRT today than it was back in 2007-2009. If their report gives Eg East LRT thumbs up, they will have one more project on their hands in the state "good to have, but cannot be funded". That doesn't count as running smoothly.

On the other hand, if they undersell Eg East LRT, it moves into the state "cannot be funded and isn't a top priority anyway". Which makes them feel more comfortable.

 

[SashaLemon]

I have to disagree. It is easier to establish a well-used transit system when you have more population. With more available riders you can run transit vehicles at a greater frequency, which makes transit more convenient and attracts more riders who otherwise would drive, or would not travel at all.

Thus if two cities differ in size but achieved the same percentage of commutes by public transit, the smaller city should be considered more successful, as it has achieved the same % of ridership against greater odds.

We are not looking at cities with the same percentage though. You can compare Calgary to like DC or something if you want to make that comparison.

 

[ARG1]

We are not looking at cities with the same percentage though. You can compare Calgary to like DC or something if you want to make that comparison.

They're basically the same, and both are a bit larger than DC.

 

[Rainforest]

We are not looking at cities with the same percentage though. You can compare Calgary to like DC or something if you want to make that comparison.

DC has a slightly lower transit % while having a much greater population. Calgary is clearly winning.

Out of all the cities listed in that chart, only 3 are clearly beating Calgary. Those are Ottawa, Guadaljara, Mexico City.

Montreal / Toronto / New York have a higher transit % too, but arguably due to a much greater population which makes it easier to maintain good transit frequencies.

 

[SashaLemon]

I'd like to see you entertain the idea of Calgary having better public transit then NYC.

 

[T3G]

Does anyone actually have any any concrete statistics on percentage of commutes that they can share?

 

[ARG1]

I'd like to see you entertain the idea of Calgary having better public transit then NYC.

I think its important to look at it from the perspective of expectation. A city like NYC is expected to have good public transit with many lines. On the complete opposite, we have cities like Kitchener-Waterloo that are small, yet has a tram line that lets KW punch above its weight. You really have to put cities into context when ranking them. Obviously out of context, NYC is better, but the question is here would be is Calgary's transit system better than NYC in the context of its size (things to include could be maintenance practices, bus service frequency, and % of the population served). I'd still say no, but I don't think that its impossible to build a case.

 

[SashaLemon]

I think its important to look at it from the perspective of expectation. A city like NYC is expected to have good public transit with many lines. On the complete opposite, we have cities like Kitchener-Waterloo that are small, yet has a tram line that lets KW punch above its weight. You really have to put cities into context when ranking them. Obviously out of context, NYC is better, but the question is here would be is Calgary's transit system better than NYC in the context of its size (things to include could be maintenance practices, bus service frequency, and % of the population served). I'd still say no, but I don't think that its impossible to build a case.

There are large cities with terrible transit like Houston. Even though Calgary is smaller I would say they have a better transit system. I still think ultimately FOR ME it comes down to "what percentage of commutes". I mean sure, I think if a city with 200k has 30% transit usage it would probably be better then a 10 million person city with 30%... but when we are dealing with cities that have at least a million I don't think "well its better because the city is less then 2 million, it's a small city!" is a good argument.

Edit: You could be Arlington, Texas, with 394,266 people. This is what it thinks public transit is:

 

[ARG1]

There are large cities with terrible transit like Houston. Even though Calgary is smaller I would say they have a better transit system. I still think ultimately FOR ME it comes down to "what percentage of commutes". I mean sure, I think if a city with 200k has 30% transit usage it would probably be better then a 10 million person city with 30%... but when we are dealing with cities that have at least a million I don't think "well its better because the city is less then 2 million, it's a small city!" is a good argument.

I mean that's kinda my point. When a City like LA or Houston has terrible transit, its a lot less acceptable and should be applied with a lot more scrutiny. I'm a lot more forgiving when a city as small as Halifax can only scrape together some BRT, compared to a City like San Antonio which makes YRT look good despite being the 7th largest city in the United States. Calgary transit isn't perfect, and ideally it needs to get more lines up and running (The Green Line is a good step, but the choice of low floor lrt is odd), but for what its worth, its a very well run and well used system (In 2019 the C-Train was the 3rd busiest light rail system in North America, only behind the Toronto Streetcar and Guadalajara)