[MisterF]

We need to look at places with similar populations densities and sprawl - it's hard to see too many examples of that. Even in parts of North America like Mexico!

The experiences in a much denser location like London aren't comparable; even there, by the time you hit the end of some of the TfL lines, you are dealing with different transit agencies running buses. And the commuter trains into central London STILL aren't under one organization - some are for-profit services!

It's very easy to find other urban areas with similar population densities.
Toronto 3088 people/km2 (latest census)
Marseille 3100
Amsterdam 3200
Frankfurt 3000
Berlin 2900
Milan 2800
Ruhr area 2800
Copenhagen 2700
Rotterdam/The Hague 2700
(the rest from Wikipedia)

 

[Undead]

I believe Toronto's population density is in the 4,500-5,000 people per square kilometre range. Approx 3,050,000 current population divided by 630 km^2 gives us ~4,800.

 

[MisterF]

I believe Toronto's population density is in the 4,500-5,000 people per square kilometre range. Approx 3,050,000 current population divided by 630 km^2 gives us ~4,800.

I was referring to the urban area (population centre in StatsCan terminology) rather than the city. That's the best apples to apples comparison with cities in other countries because it doesn't rely on arbitrary political boundaries or include rural areas.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure I see the virtue in putting every bus service in the Golden Horseshoe under one direct management umbrella. I tend to think one encounters dis-efficiency when bureaucracies (corporate as well as government) get too many layers
and too disconnected from their own frontline operations.

I do think there is room for some improvement/streamlining/coordination.

***

Before getting into that, I think the Crosstown should have TTC branding/livery; and I'm inclinded to think the TTC's own subways ought to as well as opposed to the stainless steel look. They really could and should have a sleeker appearance compatible w/TTC branding.

***

Back to the idea of broader streamlining..........I would be happy with......

- Some variation of common fare policy (if 12 and under is free, that should be the case for every GTA agency etc. Consistency of policies so one doesn't need to be familiar with 3-4 different agencies with different policies for a single commute/trip.

- An integrated fare structure for cross-GTA trips. I broadly liked the Board of Trade's proposal for a zone system in which all trips within 1 zone remain priced roughly as is; by local agencies, and follow the borders of regional municipalities.
Additionally allowing for added fares for crossing zones but adding a modest increment, not a double-fare; and waving fees for short crossings.

- GO should follow the same fare structure as the local agencies.

- I would merge Oakville/Milton/Burlington Transit into Halton Region Transit. That would be the singular added combo that adds the most value.

- I'd be tempted to Merge Brampton/Mississauga Transit into Peel Region Transit so we can uniformly follow the idea that local agencies operate at the regional level; though Brampton being the better
service I'd be concerned about it being watered down to Miway Standards instead of the latter being raised.

- If we keep Presto, every agency in the Golden Horsehoe should accept it.

 

[kalis0490]

I think funding for ion 2 should be contingent on waterloo adopting presto,. Same with guelph for all day go

 

[nfitz]

I was referring to the urban area (population centre in StatsCan terminology) rather than the city.

It looks like you've done the same for these smaller European cities as well. Which is apples and oranges.

As soon as you get away from the downtown area of most European cities, you have huge swaths of greenspace, that skews the population densities. And that's even more true if you use "urban areas" rather than the main city. You only have to look at these cities, to see that there is a higher density.

Berlin's a good example of a larger city though. I'm not very familiar with it - I have no idea how they only get 3.8 million people (35% higher than Toronto) into an area over 40% bigger than Toronto! Though a quick glance suggests that there's a lot of greenspace and waterbodies on the periphery. Though not necessarily more greenspace. More water though, as I don't think Toronto's number even the ship channel, let alone the inner harbour.

But there must be more going on than that.

Though is Berlin the shining beacon of frequent service? I'm seeing off-peak U-bahn service reported as only once every 10 minutes off-peak - and even less at night (though it is 24-hours on weekdays). The S-Bahn is even less frequent!

 

[Northern Light]

Berlin's a good example of a larger city though. I'm not very familiar with it - I have no idea how they only get 3.8 million people (35% higher than Toronto) into an area over 40% bigger than Toronto!

I think you'll find height has a lot to do with that............there are many fewer hirises in Berlin relative to Toronto.

In fact, excluding the communications towers, there is nothing over ~125M in all of Berlin!

In total there are 12 buildings over 100M for comparison, Toronto has 413 buildings 100M or greater built or under construction.

Source:

List of tallest buildings in Berlin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And UT's own 100M list.

 

[crs1026]

^Merging transit agencies across the GTA would be a huge transitional exercise, probably a two year hiatus during which not much would get done while departments were amalgamated, middle managers selected, systems and databases amalgamated, etc. A huge learning curve just to land on common methods and policies and achieve alignment and consistency. And in a unionised environment, amalgamation of many diverse bargaining units and collective agreements.

Even smaller scale amalgamations would have these learning curves…. and many operators are dependent on services provided municipally - eg Brampton Transit uses City of Brampton systems and databases, procurement legal and HR functions etc, Miway uses Mississauga‘s departments. and so forth. These functions would have to move to the regional government equivalents, or new internal central functions would have to be created and staffed and systems built.

There might be eventual improvements and efficiencies…… at the risk of creating a monolith.

My sense is that there is so much expansion going on that this is not the right time to make those changes. There may never be a “quieter” time, but the impacts and distractions of that change is to be feared. Plus, I would be suspicious of any move towards ML. Whatever local inefficiencies exist, they will not be reduced by bringing ML into the picture.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

^Merging transit agencies across the GTA would be a huge transitional exercise, probably a two year hiatus during which not much would get done while departments were amalgamated, middle managers selected, systems and databases amalgamated, etc. A huge learning curve just to land on common methods and policies and achieve alignment and consistency. And in a unionised environment, amalgamation of many diverse bargaining units and collective agreements.

A substantial budget increase too. Amalgamation showed us that the pay-scale for every employee in a role will be increased to match the highest paid people who have that role.

 

[nfitz]

I think you'll find height has a lot to do with that............there are many fewer hirises in Berlin relative to Toronto.

In fact, excluding the communications towers, there is nothing over ~125M in all of Berlin!

In total there are 12 buildings over 100M for comparison, Toronto has 413 buildings 100M or greater built or under construction.

Source:

List of tallest buildings in Berlin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And UT's own 100M list.

True. And towers tended to be clustered, rather than more uniformly distributed.

Perhaps we need the 25% and 75% percentile neighbourhood densities. Or a good density map to look at.

 

[Northern Light]

True. And towers tended to be clustered, rather than more uniformly distributed.

Perhaps we need the 25% and 75% percentile neighbourhood densities. Or a good density map to look at.

Berlin Density Map for you:

From: https://i.redd.it/j0s14zhivo931.jpg

Toronto:

From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...our-monitors-used-in-the-study_fig1_304186957

* note, the 60,000 numbers are NOT a population reference, they are an overlay for other data.

 

[JasonParis]

The TTC, Metrolinx, and the suburban systems should all be merged into a single regional system. That's the way it works in most cities that operate mass transit properly. These stupid little turf wars and competing standards are a big part of what's wrong with transportation in Toronto.

I'm not saying I totally disagree, but Metrolinx generally offers less service (or wants to) as the turf-war on Line 5 is pointing out. Moreover, serving far less density could also force them to balance out the 416 services to match 905 levels. Therefore, you get way less service where way more people ride. I'm not saying this would happen, but it is a huge risk. Also, I'm not sure the majority of world cities have their regional and city transportation agencies under the same umbrella. I can name about 20 successful ones that don't, albeit some do. Even some that look like they do (like Tfl) don't actually in some cases. It may be branded Tfl, but operated by a separate, often private, entity. Having said all that, there may have been an O.K. case for Metrolinx to have fully uploaded the TTC subway system, rather than the weird hybrid era we are entering into. Not that I believe they'd be any better at operating though.

 

[Allandale25]

Some confusing reporting by Global News' Isaac Callaan:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552108771861827584

 

[The REAL]

Accurate. Though entirely wrong-headed on the part of the City.

It's ridiculous that they build the surface part with absolute zero transit priority and still make it catered to cars. It's like saying "You can build on this property, but you have to follow the rules".

 

[The REAL]

I still find their choice of livery shocking. If memory serves, the original ideas thrown around called for green and white (?) trains, which would've been far more visually appealing than this grey on grey on grey dreck, even if it would cause the intellectually challenged to confuse it with a big honking GO Train.

I do not understand this modern era at all. It seems that the only objective is to make everything around you look as dull and dreary and depressing as possible. To match the times, perhaps? Not that I particularly enjoy 70s era kitsch but I would welcome that a million times over instead of grey/white & black/anthracite everything.

Apparently it's to match the current rapid transit train colors (subway), instead of it being red and white. It's also to distinguish that it'll be more "rapid" and not local like the streetcars downtown.