unimaginative2
Senior Member
In terms of per capita transit ridership, Toronto and LA aren't even comparable. Density is irrelevant; it's concentration and the transit-orientation of development that matters.
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
In terms of per capita transit ridership, Toronto and LA aren't even comparable. Density is irrelevant; it's concentration and the transit-orientation of development that matters.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
And what about outside Toronto proper? Burlington, Clarington, Stouffville have low transit ridership.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The 905 should be building their own rapid transit, if Peel would get past the starting post. The 905's public transit should feed the GO stations, instead of relying on park-n-ride facilities. Also, they should implement over-night service, similar to the TTC's Blue Night which runs 1:30 am to 5:00 am with headways provided every 30 minutes or better. Lastly, the 905's daytime headway (non-rush hour) should be improved as well.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I'm including the 905. There is absolutely no comparison. If you want to include the LA equivalents of Stouffville and Clarington, you'll find that they have absolutely no transit at all.
edit: To give you an idea, Antelope Valley Transit serves 2.6 million riders per year with a total population base of around 500,000 people. Burlington Transit serves over 3 million riders per year with a population base of about 175,000 people. Burlington Transit is also quite weak by GTA standards. Mississauga Transit has 33 million riders per year with a population base of around 750,000.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
Before the 905 can look at what you posted, they need to take their head out of the sand and start building density development along major transit routes or near any transit route.
Was at a planning and development meeting Monday night where it was stated that density along Hurontario should be 2.5 and council was split on the 6.13 development at 5801 Hurontario. It past thankful. The sim-detach houses will not see construction until 2015, with the towers around 2020. In fact, Councilor Frank Dale wants all development along Hurontario put on hold until the LRT is built and that not going to happen until 2020 at this time.
I made the recommendation back in 2003 for all night service on 7 MT routes and that has gone no where.
Headway should be 20 minutes or less off peak, but 40% of MT routes cannot support 45 minutes service now. Burlington is in the same boat and the worse place for transit. Most areas of any place in the 905 does not have the density to support lower headway without reducing the farebox below 30% recovery in the first place.
Land density and transit go hand in hand.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
It's not just density, though. There are plenty of places in Europe (and Toronto) that have quite low population density and high transit ridership. That's because the developments are built so that everybody is a reasonable walk from good quality transit.
drum118
Superstar
Sorry to say, Not going to find that in 905 based on the road systems and grids. Most of all, how transit routes run. Take a look at MT 14, 45, 65, 8, 15, 9, 39, 19B, 19A, 19C just to name a few routes to see the opposite as Toronto.
Cannot comment on Europe, as I have never looked at it when I was last over there. Will be spending 10 weeks this summer riding 25 systems in 15 countries. Will be using rail 100% to travel between the various cities.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I agree that the present routes are not good enough in most of the 905, but routes can easily be changed. The key is to realize that you have to improve service to establish a base standard before you see growth in ridership. Otherwise that growth will never happen.
European cities, like the 416, operate a very strong hub-and-spoke system. Local bus or tram routes feed into Metro/U-Bahn and RER/S-Bahn networks, which are used for long trips. That allows both for good service in low density areas and reasonable travel times. Their local transit is often less frequent than many Toronto bus routes, but the difference is that almost every route is at least every 10 minutes at all times. They also almost always (at least in Northern Europe) run much more reliably. Living in Berlin and riding routes in mixed traffic, I didn't see two bunched vehicles a single time.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Not to hijack this thread, but it looks like our friends to the west in Hamilton are moving in a more positive direction than Toronto, though their funding is a problem - http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/706965--city-refines-lrt-corridor-plans
doady
Senior Member
This is incorrect. Antelope Valley Transit serves 2.6 million riders per year but this is in terms of boardings (unlinked trips). Canadian transit ridership is counted as revenue rides (linked trips). Burlington Transit by the US standard probably serves 3.5 or 4 million riders. Mississauga Transit gets around 50 million boardings per year.
I hope you are not referring to the TTC, because the TTC is almost a pure grid-based system, probably one the truest examples of a grid based transit system in the world...
Last edited:
unimaginative2
Senior Member
The Burlington figure was unlinked trips, but you're right about the Mississauga number.
I am indeed referring to the TTC. Of course the bus routes mostly operate in a grid, but how do most people travel long distances? They ride the bus to the subway, and then they take the subway either to their destination or to their connection with another bus route. It's a hub and spoke system, with the subway acting as the hub.
car4041
Active Member
A hub-and-spoke system has many routes converging on a single central area (e.g. Boston, Chicago, or Washington, or the GO train network). This is not the case with the TTC -- it really is a grid system. Yes, slower gridlines (buses) feed faster gridlines (subways), and some individual subway stations serve as hubs, but to refer to an entire subway line as a hub makes the term "hub" meaningless. A hub is a point.
doady
Senior Member
Yes, a subway system is not a hub because it is a series of lines. A hub by definiton is a point, not a line or a series of lines. A line itself is a series of points.
Most of the lines in the Toronto do not serve hubs. The Bloor-Danforth line for example bypasses the Financial District forcing people to transfer to the YUS line. The Sheppard East bus bypasses Scarbrough Centre. 36 Finch West bypasses York University. Many routes do not serve any hubs at all. There are many more examples. I don't know of any transit system in the world that is more grid-based than the TTC.
For a true hub-and-spoke system, just look at GO Transit. All the rail lines converge at a single point (ie. a hub), and the bus routes converge there as well and at many other points throughout the GTA (e.g. Sq One, etc.).
Of course, some systems (probably most systems) are mix of hub-and-spoke and grid system. In the GTA, Mississauga Transit is a good example. Eglinton Ave in Mississauga has both grid serviceand hub-and-spoke service. 35 Eglinton is designed to serve the Eglinton Corridor rather than connect people to any hub (it bypasses Square One and Erin Mills TC), while the hubs near the corridor are served by routes 7 and 34.
As these examples show, both grid and hub-and-spoke are viable models for a transit system.
Most of the lines in the Toronto do not serve hubs. The Bloor-Danforth line for example bypasses the Financial District forcing people to transfer to the YUS line. The Sheppard East bus bypasses Scarbrough Centre. 36 Finch West bypasses York University. Many routes do not serve any hubs at all. There are many more examples. I don't know of any transit system in the world that is more grid-based than the TTC.
For a true hub-and-spoke system, just look at GO Transit. All the rail lines converge at a single point (ie. a hub), and the bus routes converge there as well and at many other points throughout the GTA (e.g. Sq One, etc.).
Of course, some systems (probably most systems) are mix of hub-and-spoke and grid system. In the GTA, Mississauga Transit is a good example. Eglinton Ave in Mississauga has both grid serviceand hub-and-spoke service. 35 Eglinton is designed to serve the Eglinton Corridor rather than connect people to any hub (it bypasses Square One and Erin Mills TC), while the hubs near the corridor are served by routes 7 and 34.
As these examples show, both grid and hub-and-spoke are viable models for a transit system.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
If you want absolute precision, trunk and feeder could be used, but the principle remains the same. It's not a classic grid system where all routes are equal. It's the feeder aspect that's most important.