Try to separate the issues. One can have both a decent democracy and the resolve to actually build public infrastructure, including large-scale rapid transit systems, appropriate for population size. Compare Toronto not to Shanghai nor Singapore, but rather to Sydney/Melbourne, Stockholm, DC and Berlin, for example, which all have strong democratic public works policies, but also actually build transit.
Sydney/Melbourne don't even have subways and DC's metro is so badly managed that they had to shut the entire system down on a weekday for emergency repairs. These aren't very good examples.

Berlin's U-Bahn is more utilitarian than the first Yonge Line stations. Maybe they're able to build more because they don't hire starchitects to build $300 million subway stations in the middle of nowhere.
 
Sydney/Melbourne don't even have subways and DC's metro is so badly managed that they had to shut the entire system down on a weekday for emergency repairs. These aren't very good examples.
"Examples?"
Sydney, the largest city in Australia, has an extensive network of passenger and freight railways. The passenger system consists of an extensive suburban railway network, Sydney Trains, which has a central underground core running at metro-equivalent frequencies, and a light rail line, mostly running on a formerly disused line that was a part of the separate network of freight lines. Sydney Metro is a rapid transit system under construction, that will be operated independently from the current train network, but interchange with it. The light rail network is also expanding, with the only currently operational light rail line being the Dulwich Hill Line.

The existing network has some things in common with conventional rapid transit systems, including 20 hours a day operation, 15 minute or better frequencies on most of the network, large underground sections, a ridership comparable and even larger than most North American rapid transit systems and relatively small distances between stations.
[...]
Most suburban services operate through central Sydney via the underground City Circle (not a true circle line but a two-way loop extending under the CBD from Central Station, the Eastern Suburbs underground line, or over the Harbour Bridge. There are have been long term plans for a new underground line passing beneath Pitt Street to a new harbour crossing. Currently this line is in the advanced planning stages as a rapid transit line, with construction expected from 2017-2024.

Timetables are published for all lines, and most lines run on headways of 15 minutes in peak periods, half-hourly off-peak and weekends. Headways are closer over shared routes. Although frequencies match metro style operation in the city core, few Sydneysiders use the underground network as a metro, most journeys being commuter trips from suburbs into the central city area. An exception to this is the Eastern Suburbs line which serves the high density inner eastern suburbs and opened in 1979.

Rolling stock
Main article: Rail rolling stock in New South Wales
All suburban passenger trains in Sydney are double-deck electric multiple units. Upon electrification in the 1920s Sydney operated single-deck multiple units but these were progressively withdrawn from the 1960s until their final demise in 1993. Single-deck cars will be reintroduced to Sydney with the completion of the Sydney Metro Northwest. [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railways_in_Sydney
Melbourne's suburban railway network consists of 16 electrified lines, the central City Loop subway, and 207 stations, with a total length of 372 km of electrified lines. The suburban network operates between approximately 5:00 a.m. and midnight. [...]
In the 2016–17 financial year, the Melbourne rail network recorded 236.8 million passenger trips, a 0.5 percent increase on the previous year.[3][...]
320px-Melbrail_former_present_proposed.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railways_in_Melbourne


Berlin's U-Bahn is more utilitarian than the first Yonge Line stations.
Depends what part.
Take a look at the extent of it:
berlin-metro-map.pjpeg

https://berlinmap360.com/berlin-metro-map

Maybe they're able to build more because they don't hire starchitects to build $300 million subway stations in the middle of nowhere.
On that we agree, but it's more than that. Others just know how to run a transit system. Toronto is still generations out of date, and apparently getting worse.

As for China, more high speed rail than the rest of the world combined. And the investment is coming here, to a station near you...soon.
 
Last edited:
The suburban railway systems in Sydney and Melbourne are more like GO Train lines, which are far cheaper to build.

And by Berlin's U-Bahn being utilitarian, I was referring to the fact that all their stations look the same, are built very close to the surface, and most don't have elevators or escalators. No need to look at a map since I was there recently and very impressed by their transit system.
 
The suburban railway systems in Sydney and Melbourne are more like GO Train lines, which are far cheaper to build.

And by Berlin's U-Bahn being utilitarian, I was referring to the fact that all their stations look the same, are built very close to the surface, and most don't have elevators or escalators. No need to look at a map since I was there recently and very impressed by their transit system.
Exactly. And we should be learning from them instead of worshiping "subways, subways, subways".

Whether or not you meant to make the point, you infere that *tunneling* an RER network into the core is cheaper than building orthodox 'subways'. The trend in larger world class cities is exactly that now: Through-unning RER in tunnel.

When does Toronto get it? (In all fairness, Toronto, even though the subway section of TTC Planning pushed for this, was coerced from outside as much as inside on this.)
 
The suburban railway systems in Sydney and Melbourne are more like GO Train lines, which are far cheaper to build.

Except they really aren't. Both Sydney and Melbourne's systems are more like "surface subways". There are no more level crossings in the "suburban" part of the Sydney Trains network, which includes several stations in the CBD and around 178 stations in total (and far more stations on the seamlessly connected, also mostly-electrified intercity portions) and is completely electrified. All stations have raised platforms, and the core part of the system has 2-10 minute frequency throughout the day and night. There is also far smaller stop spacing than GO, albeit larger than TTC subway's stop spacing.
Furthermore, tracks are all duplicated and quadruplicated with trunk section stations having 12 or more platforms, above ground and underground platforms (i.e. Redfern).
Interestingly, the annual amount that Sydney spends purely on its rail division, "Sydney Trains" is greater than that of the entire TTC.
As for Melbourne, it has even more stations in its suburban system, and is fairly similar to Sydney's system, although there aren't as many tracks on most lines. It does have the world's largest tram system, however, with several right of way portions.

Sydney is also constructing a 67km metro system, due for completion in 2024. Aussies in the transit (or 'transport' as they call it) biz do have a bit of a sore spot about not technically having a metro system yet, but their system still ends up providing far better coverage than Toronto's, or any city in Canada's metro system does.

As for DC, they really messed up the operating side, hence the shutdown. But go to DC and you'll see just how extensive their system is. Pick the place where you are and the place where you want to go - chances are, rapid rail will take you all the way there. The same can't be said for any Canadian city at present. Thus, we need to examine why that is, and resolve to build more.
 
Australian cities have extensive suburban rail systems because railways in Australia were historically more focused on local/intrastate transportation (which was more the domain of the radial lines in North America). Australia still doesn't really have a fully integrated contiguous transcontinental railway system like in Canada, they actually still have several breaks of gauge.

Both the Sydney and Melbourne systems were also badly neglected for many years and suffered very steep ridership drops in the decades following WWII. Australia probably has a bigger car culture than Canada does.
 
Exactly. And we should be learning from them instead of worshiping "subways, subways, subways".

Whether or not you meant to make the point, you infere that *tunneling* an RER network into the core is cheaper than building orthodox 'subways'. The trend in larger world class cities is exactly that now: Through-unning RER in tunnel.

When does Toronto get it? (In all fairness, Toronto, even though the subway section of TTC Planning pushed for this, was coerced from outside as much as inside on this.)
That's my point...Toronto is slow at building rapid transit because we tunnel through fields in Vaughan. The other cities mentioned can build a lot more because they'd never build an extension like the TYSSE in the manner that we do.
 
Except they really aren't. Both Sydney and Melbourne's systems are more like "surface subways".
Surface subways are still far more like GO Train lines than a fully tunnelled subway with starchitect stations in the middle of nowhere

DCs system is also mostly elevated or at grade outside the core.
 
Australian cities have extensive suburban rail systems because railways in Australia were historically more focused on local/intrastate transportation (which was more the domain of the radial lines in North America).
Apples and Oranges. Radial and Mainline rail in Canada competed, and rail won. Oz also had interurban tram systems, and more vestiges are extant there today than in Canada.

Australia still doesn't really have a fully integrated contiguous transcontinental railway system like in Canada, they actually still have several breaks of gauge.
The Indian Pacific is an Australian passenger rail service that operates between Sydney, on the Pacific Ocean, and Perth, on the Indian Ocean.[2] It is one of the few truly transcontinental trains in the world. The train first ran in February 1970 after the completion of gauge conversion projects in South and Western Australia.[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Pacific

The east–west rail corridor is a standard gauge railway that runs across Australia starting in Sydney, linking the Eastern states to Western Australia.[1] The Indian Pacific passenger service operates along the route, as do a number of local passenger services. [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–west_rail_corridor,_Australia
 
Last edited:
As for the [if you don't like Canada, then get the hell out] style of patriotism in your comment, well maybe it's just me but I think that kind of rhetoric is really un-Canadian.
Oh cut this feel-good liberal bullshit. I'm an immigrant myself and I would never say Serbia gets stuff done more than Canada does, because if that were to be the case then I wouldn't be here in the first place
 
You do not need to look to China for subway built-time and cost comparisons.

Warsaw built their Metro Line 2 in 4.5 years of construction for 7 stations and 6.3km of track that goes underneath the Wisla river (a much more formidable river than the Don).

It cost $1.5 billion CAD.

Poland is a democracy with western labour practices. Cheaper labour than Canada to be sure, but not much more cheaper (in comparison to China).

So when we are doing these comparisons, I really don't think it is a question of why is China so cheap. It is more, why is Canada so expensive? (and why with higher expense, construction time seems to go up rather than down?)
 
Oh cut this feel-good liberal bullshit. I'm an immigrant myself and I would never say Serbia gets stuff done more than Canada does, because if that were to be the case then I wouldn't be here in the first place

Um, I don't recall anyone mentioning anything about Serbia. But good for you for bringing up Serbia, which is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
 

Back
Top