[nfitz]

weret the former fare collectors supposed to be repurposed as ambassadors and assistants?

Something like that - and the London Underground staff standing on the fare lines, do have that role. Mostly they are watching for issues, but they are talking to people to. Answering questions. Helping get large bags through the fare lines. Presumably assisting with the fare vending machines too - I didn't see that, but similar staff on PATH helped me navigate their rather confusing system, that let's you buy completely different cards.

The fare gates are off-the-shelf for the most part, made by Scheidt & Bachmann. Other cities - Boston, for example - use very similar fare gates from the same company without all these problems.

That's good to hear. Perhaps just teething problems. Do they really try to use the gates bi-directionally in Boston at the same time? Reading Boston's info - I can't see any info on how one exits through the fare gates? Do they not use the gates, or are those Charlies just stuck on the system forever? (edit - the picture below suggests they are used for exit too).

Hmm, looking at photos, the Boston gates don't look the same. The gates are a different shape, and look more sturdy.

Also, Boston is much quieter system. There's only 3 stations with more than 20,000 passengers a day, and the highest is about 25,000 according to https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2015/08/25/these-are-the-busiest-t-stops

Compare to TTC - Wellesley is 23,000 - and it's the quiet downtown stop no one uses! We've got over 35 stations higher than 20,000 (not including transfer stations) with some over 100,000 (Bloor-Yonge is about 400,000, St. George is about 260,000, Kennedy is over 100,000, Sheppard-Yonge is 120,000).

Even under-used Don Mills on the Sheppard line is almost 34,000 - far higher than any Boston station.

So why does Boston seem to have sturdier looking gates, for far less traffic? Did we buy the wrong ones?

 

[amnesiajune]

We've got over 35 stations higher than 20,000 (not including transfer stations) with some over 100,000 (Bloor-Yonge is about 400,000, St. George is about 260,000, Kennedy is over 100,000, Sheppard-Yonge is 120,000).

Those numbers are wrong - you're counting transfers twice. Boston's heavy rail ridership (i.e. not including the Green Line) is a bit more than half of Toronto's. And "under-used Don Mills" is in the top third of TTC stations for ridership (it's the 21st-busiest).

Anyways, Toronto probably bought lower-profile fare gates so they can be used in the small automatic entrances. And according to the contract the manufacturer is responsible for "provision of spare parts and repairs of defective parts", "on-site maintenance visits to address issues that TTC personnel are unable to resolve", and "life-cycle maintenance of the fare gates and its components to enhance reliability of the fare gates".

 

[nfitz]

Those numbers are wrong - you're counting transfers twice.

There's a reason I avoided the transfer points in the comparison, as I have no idea how Boston does it. But even at non-transfer spots, 25,000 is their HIGHEST ridership. That's Davisville, Sherbourne, and Lawrence numbers.

Boston's heavy rail ridership (i.e. not including the Green Line) is a bit more than half of Toronto's.

Yeah that's odd, isn't it. Some of those APTA numbers have always had me scratching my head. I fail to comprehend for example how Montreal allegedly has 10% higher ridership than Toronto, given that they have almost the same number of km, same number of stations, same length platforms, narrow trains, run less frequently, and don't run as many hours in the day. And in my experience, off-peak ridership is higher in Toronto (peak is similarly crushed, with the combination of equipment shortages in Montreal, and the inability to run more trains with the antiquated signalling system in Toronto).

Anyways, Toronto probably bought lower-profile fare gates so they can be used in the small automatic entrances. And according to the contract the manufacturer is responsible for "provision of spare parts and repairs of defective parts", "on-site maintenance visits to address issues that TTC personnel are unable to resolve", and "life-cycle maintenance of the fare gates and its components to enhance reliability of the fare gates".

Perhaps - but ultimately, if they've cheaped out, it won't ever work, and the vendor isn't going to simply swap every gate for a higher quality unit, without a huge legal battle.

 

[salsa]

I fail to comprehend for example how Montreal allegedly has 10% higher ridership than Toronto, given that they have almost the same number of km, same number of stations, same length platforms, narrow trains, run less frequently, and don't run as many hours in the day. And in my experience, off-peak ridership is higher in Toronto (peak is similarly crushed, with the combination of equipment shortages in Montreal, and the inability to run more trains with the antiquated signalling system in Toronto).

Regardless, the fact that ridership in Montreal - a smaller city with a weaker economy - even comes close to Toronto let alone surpasses it, and has a subway system that's about the same size as our's...... that's just embarrassing.

 

[aquateam]

There's a reason I avoided the transfer points in the comparison, as I have no idea how Boston does it. But even at non-transfer spots, 25,000 is their HIGHEST ridership. That's Davisville, Sherbourne, and Lawrence numbers.

Yeah that's odd, isn't it. Some of those APTA numbers have always had me scratching my head. I fail to comprehend for example how Montreal allegedly has 10% higher ridership than Toronto, given that they have almost the same number of km, same number of stations, same length platforms, narrow trains, run less frequently, and don't run as many hours in the day. And in my experience, off-peak ridership is higher in Toronto (peak is similarly crushed, with the combination of equipment shortages in Montreal, and the inability to run more trains with the antiquated signalling system in Toronto).

Perhaps - but ultimately, if they've cheaped out, it won't ever work, and the vendor isn't going to simply swap every gate for a higher quality unit, without a huge legal battle.

It seems strange to me, as a transit rider in both cities. I think that part of the reason might have to do with the way that the numbers are recorded. In Montreal, Opus cards are ubiquitous and are always tapped at entry, so the quality of data is very good. Passes are also about half the price of in Toronto and they pay for themselves in only ~25 uses, compared to ~50 in Toronto, so there is more incentive to get the monthly passes. In Toronto, most people use metropasses and just flash them at the gates... there is no way to count those other than "trip diaries" which I suspect aren't the most accurate. Anecdotally, with the POP system I see fare evasion quite often in Toronto. So it might not be that ridership is lower, just that it is underreported.

Regardless, the fact that ridership in Montreal - a smaller city with a weaker economy - even comes close to Toronto let alone surpasses it, and has a subway system that's about the same size as our's...... that's just embarrassing.

That's very true, although longer-term trends in Montreal show that mode share is hurting from suburbanization. Ridership is also struggling more than in Toronto.

Montreal's advantage seems to be that it has more established dense neighbourhoods, and that the predominant form of housing there (duplexes/triplexes) which is more transit-supportive is illegal in most of Toronto.

 

[pman]

Regardless, the fact that ridership in Montreal - a smaller city with a weaker economy - even comes close to Toronto let alone surpasses it, and has a subway system that's about the same size as our's...... that's just embarrassing.

While I'm not an expert on the Montreal Metro, it does strike me as somewhat less irrationally planned than Toronto's subway. For example, should we really count the Sheppard line in Toronto's total km? Its ridership numbers are minimal after all. Montreal seems to have had more planning and less politics in its transit decisions.

 

[TransitBart]

While I'm not an expert on the Montreal Metro, it does strike me as somewhat less irrationally planned than Toronto's subway.

For example, should we really count the Sheppard line in Toronto's total km? Its ridership numbers are minimal after all.

How is this rational?

In this clique of supposedly rational thinkers, strongly held opinions frequently front as facts and rational thought.

The track is laid. It is 5.5 km long. You add it to the total. Period.

 

[amnesiajune]

For example, should we really count the Sheppard line in Toronto's total km? Its ridership numbers are minimal after all.

Should Montreal count its Yellow Line?

 

[nfitz]

Regardless, the fact that ridership in Montreal - a smaller city with a weaker economy - even comes close to Toronto let alone surpasses it, and has a subway system that's about the same size as our's...... that's just embarrassing.

In terms of the area covered by subway, populations are generally denser, transit is cheaper, and the subway has better coverage of the older area of the city. It never degenerates into this 2 km between station stuff because of low population densities in suburbia, that you see in Toronto - other than underneath the river.

It also suffers from much lower commuter rail ridership, and much lower bus ridership - both of the main STM, but particularly in the case of suburban systems.

It seems strange to me, as a transit rider in both cities. I think that part of the reason might have to do with the way that the numbers are recorded. In Montreal, Opus cards are ubiquitous and are always tapped at entry, so the quality of data is very good. Passes are also about half the price of in Toronto and they pay for themselves in only ~25 uses, compared to ~50 in Toronto, so there is more incentive to get the monthly passes. In Toronto, most people use metropasses and just flash them at the gates... there is no way to count those other than "trip diaries" which I suspect aren't the most accurate. Anecdotally, with the POP system I see fare evasion quite often in Toronto. So it might not be that ridership is lower, just that it is underreported.

Maybe ... all I know is with narrow trains, less frequency, shorter running hours, and anecdotal observations of less riders in peak - something smells odd.

That's very true, although longer-term trends in Montreal show that mode share is hurting from suburbanization.

Something that Toronto battled with years ago, at the point that Toronto was quickly expanding, while Montreal stagnated after Levesque was elected.

Montreal's advantage seems to be that it has more established dense neighbourhoods, and that the predominant form of housing there (duplexes/triplexes) which is more transit-supportive is illegal in most of Toronto.

Illegal? There was a narrow 4-story unit built near us recently, with one unit on the first 2 stories, and another on the second 2 stories. I see lots of places with stores on the first floor, and an apartment above them. I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm quite curious about this.

While I'm not an expert on the Montreal Metro, it does strike me as somewhat less irrationally planned than Toronto's subway.

I know, what were they thinking. Having more than one line go through the downtown core? Who does that? And those silly transfer stations, where all you do is walk across the platform? How can anyone get any exercise if there's no stairs to climb?

 

[aquateam]

Illegal? There was a narrow 4-story unit built near us recently, with one unit on the first 2 stories, and another on the second 2 stories. I see lots of places with stores on the first floor, and an apartment above them. I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm quite curious about this.

This is Toronto's city-wide residential zoning. All of the light yellow, the majority of the surface area, is reserved for detached/semi-detached housing. No duplexes, townhomes, low-rise apartment buildings, etc.:

It's hard to find an equivalent map of zoning for Montreal since planning is balkanized based on borough, but you'll see lots of "missing middle" housing in areas far from downtown, even in exurban/rural areas. This blog post talks about it.

 

[smallspy]

I don't get why these gates can't be reset by the collector. In London if a gate fails, the station supervisor would just open up the access panel inside the fare gate and punch in a code for it to reset the gates. Why can't this responsibility be placed on the collector since it impacts revenue with so many OOS gates throughout the system?

Maybe in the future, it can. But if it's a mechanical problem - broken bolt, bent linkage, belt fallen off, whatever - what good is the collector resetting the device going to do?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[cplchanb]

Maybe in the future, it can. But if it's a mechanical problem - broken bolt, bent linkage, belt fallen off, whatever - what good is the collector resetting the device going to do?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I guess the question is,... were they actually mechanical problems or just programming faults?

 

[nfitz]

I guess the question is,... were they actually mechanical problems or just programming faults?

Presumably some programming faults, as you still seem to be able to exit through gates, that show you can't. Some of the time at least.

This is Toronto's city-wide residential zoning. All of the light yellow, the majority of the surface area, is reserved for detached/semi-detached housing. No duplexes, townhomes, low-rise apartment buildings, etc.

Ah, I see what you mean. Not a prohibition on Duplexes/Triplexes - just less area where they are approved.

Yes, I think this is what we mean, as Montreal having higher density - or at least higher density over a greater area. You don't really see the subway leaving the higher density area in Montreal into the single family detached housing suburbs, like we do in Toronto.

Although it does start to get a bit less dense in St. Laurent, north of the 40, around Metro du College and Metro Cote Vertu - though still lots of duplexes, but not tucked in together as tight.

The Laval extension is another story. Particularly Metro de la Concorde - perahps that's why it's one of the least used stations, despite being an interchange to the Saint-Jérôme AMT line.

 

[smallspy]

I guess the question is,... were they actually mechanical problems or just programming faults?

I've seen both - and to be honest, what I perceive as "mechanical faults" (gates stuck ajar) seem to have become the more prevalent of the two.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Something that I've noticed this past week when using the fare gates at North York Centre is they seemed to be tuned to open faster than any of the gates across the system. Maybe it's just me.

One thing that could be changed though the is the "wait" display. It seems most people would avoid gates with this display; the assumption that the gate is frozen and not working. I would say that providing a green background instead of the white background would be helpful or even changing the signage to a green upward point arrow.

Overall though (across the system), the gates are still far too slow compare to the old turnstiles.