[denfromoakvillemilton]

LA's population is only 1 million more than Toronto.

Los Angeles has 19 million, Toronto 6.1 million the greater area

And by 2025, Toronto will have 141.5 km of rapid transit.

I hope the new council does not cancel the sheppard and finch LRT's

 

[ehlow]

LA's population is only 1 million more than Toronto.

You're right, I should've been more specific, I was thinking of the metro area numbers rather than city population.

Still city population is 3.8 million vs. 2.8 million, so by that measure LA is a much bigger city.

Having said that, I'm not sure how they would compare in terms of growth rate.

 

[Translude15]

Los Angeles has 19 million, Toronto 6.1 million the greater area



I hope the new council does not cancel the sheppard and finch LRT's

Greater LA actually has 18 million people and includes San Bernardino, Riverside and Ventura Counties. That's an area that essentially covers all of Southern California minus San Diego. In other words, Greater LA is HUGE.

GTA doesn't include Oshawa, Hamilton, or St. Catherines-Niagara. Including those areas puts the inner-ring of the Golden Horseshoe at over 7 million people. Not large compared to LA, but one of the largest in NA nonetheless.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Greater LA actually has 18 million people and includes San Bernardino, Riverside and Ventura Counties. That's an area that essentially covers all of Southern California minus San Diego. In other words, Greater LA is HUGE.

GTA doesn't include Oshawa, Hamilton, or St. Catherines-Niagara. Including those areas puts the inner-ring of the Golden Horseshoe at over 7 million people. Not large compared to LA, but one of the largest in NA nonetheless.

I just checked and its 17.82. The GTA is from burlington to Oshawa. You cited the Toronto CMA, which is much smaller and includes places like Orangeville and Alliston.

 

[JasonParis]

Indeed, GTA does include amalgamated Toronto, York, Halton, Peel and Durham. GTHA also includes Hamilton. CMA includes less the GTA and GGH (Greater Golden Horseshoe) is the entire commuter/economic corridor and is fairly massive in North American standards.

 

[ksun]

And by 2025, Toronto will have 141.5 km of rapid transit.

The DRL is not approved, nor funded, nor designed, is it? And you have already included that in the system we WILL have by 2025.
Chances that the DRL is completed by 2025 is close to zero (unless we start digging like right now. Eglinton is taking 10 years, don't forget).

 

[ksun]

I just checked and its 17.82. The GTA is from burlington to Oshawa. You cited the Toronto CMA, which is much smaller and includes places like Orangeville and Alliston.

Yes, LA is much larger than GTA (GTHA).

The message is that LA is an incredibly car dependent city. Nobody on the earth will think of LA when it comes to public transit, but they are actually really fast and have concrete plans and funding to expand the system.

On the other hand, Toronto seems to be proud to have great public transit, yet our system doesn't seem to fare well either now or in 2025 in terms of RAPID transit. It is really not a proud thing to beat LA in terms of transit, is it?

Of course I am ignoring streetcars and buses here. I don't think their number is close to being as important as subways/LRTs, and they don't help that much for our travel across the GTA and far from being sufficient for a city like Toronto (slow, small capacity, unpredictable schedule etc). So I hope nobody will come back and say "but we have xxxx thousand busess and xxx streetcars".

 

[ehlow]

Yes, LA is much larger than GTA (GTHA).

The message is that LA is an incredibly car dependent city. Nobody on the earth will think of LA when it comes to public transit, but they are actually really fast and have concrete plans and funding to expand the system.

On the other hand, Toronto seems to be proud to have great public transit, yet our system doesn't seem to fare well either now or in 2025 in terms of RAPID transit. It is really not a proud thing to beat LA in terms of transit, is it?

Of course I am ignoring streetcars and buses here. I don't think their number is close to being as important as subways/LRTs, and they don't help that much for our travel across the GTA and far from being sufficient for a city like Toronto (slow, small capacity, unpredictable schedule etc). So I hope nobody will come back and say "but we have xxxx thousand busess and xxx streetcars".

Reputation always lags behind reality & much of of LA's rapid transit network was constructed in the last 20 years. Having said that I've heard & read that it's still extremely car-dependant. That's also one of the reasons why Toronto's reputation doesn't match how big of a city it is, because it has grown a lot only recently.

Having said that.. I've never ever heard anybody in Toronto say they were "proud to have great public transit". We may disagree on the technology or routes, but almost everyone recognizes we need more transit, and a bigger rapid transit system, even people who would never take transit. We would need more rapid transit lines even with the current population, let alone at the rate our city's population is growing.

 

[doady]

I think deep down transit riders in Toronto are glad that they don't live in LA. The ridership level of the LACMTA is on par with Mississauga Transit. So yeah it's pretty bad.

A city like Toronto definitely should have a lot more rapid transit, so it's too bad they're focusing on LRTs instead and ignoring rapid transit.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I think deep down transit riders in Toronto are glad that they don't live in LA. The ridership level of the LACMTA is on par with Mississauga Transit. So yeah it's pretty bad.

A city like Toronto definitely should have a lot more rapid transit, so it's too bad they're focusing on LRTs instead and ignoring rapid transit.

Well, that falls on the riders then doady. They shouldn't be so cheap...

 

[ksun]

I think deep down transit riders in Toronto are glad that they don't live in LA. The ridership level of the LACMTA is on par with Mississauga Transit. So yeah it's pretty bad.

I don't see how lower ridership means bad transit. Transit is transit, it is there as an option when you want to take it. The fact others don't like taking it doesn't seem to affect you. Ridership is low, doesn't mean the system is bad, does it?

LA has low ridership because
1) it is very very cheap to own a car there (car price 20% lower, gas price 30% lower, insurance 50% lower than Toronto)
2) it always has a car culture. people aren't used to taking buses/subways - it kind of implies you are poor in Southern CA. Even most students drive.

I am not sure "deep down" transit riders in Toronto are glad they don't live in LA. It is too dismissive about another city. Well, maybe in LA they can afford to drive a car. How many of us don't have a car because it costs too much here in Toronto? The insurance premium in GTA is unheard of in California, which is at least partially why ridership of transit is high.

You seem to interpret high ridership as evidence that people like the TTC, when in fact they only NEED it. I honestly don't know anyone who have tons of positive things to say about the TTC.

Also: GTA is largely car dependent. Maybe not as much as LA but not far behind. Sometimes not having a car is not a choice. I know people who take the bus to carry television or 20lb of rice back home. I am sure you would prefer driving in many cases.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Yes, LA is much larger than GTA (GTHA).

The message is that LA is an incredibly car dependent city. Nobody on the earth will think of LA when it comes to public transit, but they are actually really fast and have concrete plans and funding to expand the system.

On the other hand, Toronto seems to be proud to have great public transit, yet our system doesn't seem to fare well either now or in 2025 in terms of RAPID transit. It is really not a proud thing to beat LA in terms of transit, is it?

Of course I am ignoring streetcars and buses here. I don't think their number is close to being as important as subways/LRTs, and they don't help that much for our travel across the GTA and far from being sufficient for a city like Toronto (slow, small capacity, unpredictable schedule etc). So I hope nobody will come back and say "but we have xxxx thousand busess and xxx streetcars".

I don't see how lower ridership means bad transit. Transit is transit, it is there as an option when you want to take it. The fact others don't like taking it doesn't seem to affect you. Ridership is low, doesn't mean the system is bad, does it?

LA has low ridership because
1) it is very very cheap to own a car there (car price 20% lower, gas price 30% lower, insurance 50% lower than Toronto)
2) it always has a car culture. people aren't used to taking buses/subways - it kind of implies you are poor in Southern CA. Even most students drive.

I am not sure "deep down" transit riders in Toronto are glad they don't live in LA. It is too dismissive about another city. Well, maybe in LA they can afford to drive a car. How many of us don't have a car because it costs too much here in Toronto? The insurance premium in GTA is unheard of in California, which is at least partially why ridership of transit is high.

You seem to interpret high ridership as evidence that people like the TTC, when in fact they only NEED it. I honestly don't know anyone who have tons of positive things to say about the TTC.

Also: GTA is largely car dependent. Maybe not as much as LA but not far behind. Sometimes not having a car is not a choice. I know people who take the bus to carry television or 20lb of rice back home. I am sure you would prefer driving in many cases.

Right now people would rather be in LA with the ice storm and all. I agree with you ksun. The GTA is car dependent because the we let it get that way. Do you think if go service was better outside lakeshore it would be?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I think deep down transit riders in Toronto are glad that they don't live in LA. The ridership level of the LACMTA is on par with Mississauga Transit. So yeah it's pretty bad.

A city like Toronto definitely should have a lot more rapid transit, so it's too bad they're focusing on LRTs instead and ignoring rapid transit.

The TTC has indicated that LRT is rapid transit. I agree with them.

I also wouldn't say that Toronto is focusing on LRT. The city actually has more subway projects underway than light rail (Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension, Yonge North Subway Extension, Bloor-Danforth Subway Extension and Relief Line coming very soon). Rather than doing something dumb like building only subways, Toronto has opted to build subways and intermediate capacity systems where they are appropriate. That's something that should be commended.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The DRL is not approved, nor funded, nor designed, is it? And you have already included that in the system we WILL have by 2025.
Chances that the DRL is completed by 2025 is close to zero (unless we start digging like right now. Eglinton is taking 10 years, don't forget).

If you say so.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The DRL is not approved, nor funded, nor designed, is it? And you have already included that in the system we WILL have by 2025.
Chances that the DRL is completed by 2025 is close to zero (unless we start digging like right now. Eglinton is taking 10 years, don't forget).

The TTC has indicated that LRT is rapid transit. I agree with them.

I also wouldn't say that Toronto is focusing on LRT. The city actually has more subway projects underway than light rail (Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension, Yonge North Subway Extension, Bloor-Danforth Subway Extension and Relief Line coming very soon). Rather than doing something dumb like building only subways, Toronto has opted to build subways and intermediate capacity systems where they are appropriate. That's something that should be commended.

It would be nice to see a Mt Dennis-Pearson commitment as well. Vancouver has an airport rail link.