West Coast Cities are Putting Toronto to Shame When It Comes to Transit Ridership

[M II A II R II K]

West Coast Cities are Putting Toronto to Shame When It Comes to Transit Ridership


AUGUST 5, 2017

BY ALEX GATIEN, AND JESSICA BELL

Read More: http://torontoist.com/2017/08/west-c...sit-ridership/

On July 26, Translink, the transit agency for Metro Vancouver, released its ridership figures for the first six months of 2017. Compared to the same period in the previous year, transit use was up a stellar 5.7 per cent. Translink already saw ridership jump by 4.5 per cent in 2016, which made it the top city in Canada and the United States for transit growth. With a growth rate of 4.1 per cent in 2016, nearby Seattle was the only other city anywhere close to Vancouver. Meanwhile, transit use in Toronto has effectively flatlined.

- The first three months of 2017 (data for the first six months of the year isn’t available yet) saw average daily TTC ridership minutely increase by 0.06 per cent, or about 115 times smaller than Vancouver’s growth rate. The TTC’s lacklustre 2016 ridership growth rate of 0.7 per cent attracted some media attention, but little of the kind of comparative analysis with other cities that could provide us with applicable lessons for the TTC. --- Internally, the TTC seemed unwilling to engage in the necessary soul-searching. TTC spokesperson Brad Ross dismissed 2016’s disappointing figures, and incorrectly explained that “[c]ompared with transit systems across North America, all of which have seen a softening of ridership, the TTC is doing well.”

- In maintaining ridership the TTC does compare favourably to cities like Washington, D.C., which saw transit use plummet in 2016 as a result of massive service cutbacks and catastrophic reliability problems. But quite plainly, cities like Vancouver and Seattle have not only bucked the trend of declining transit use but excelled. So, what are they doing right, and what should Toronto emulate? --- The recipe for success is fairly straightforward. Vancouver and Seattle have both built new infrastructure and improved service on existing routes. Vancouver began the implementation of its 10-year strategic plan earlier this year. Alongside new infrastructure, such as a Skytrain extension along Broadway and light rail in Surrey, the plan calls for a 10 per cent increase in bus service on existing routes, and a 20 per cent increase in SkyTrain service by 2020.

- After decades of underinvestment in new infrastructure, Metro Seattle has adopted a similar program for transit growth. Since 2010, it has introduced 6 RapidRide BRT-lite routes, with plans for seven more by 2024. The three RapidRide routes running in Seattle itself have increased ridership by 87 per cent compared to the normal bus routes they replaced. Seattle’s Link LRT has also been a smashing success, with total ridership increasing by 40 per cent in the first half of 2017 compared to the same period in 2016. In November 2016, Seattle voters elected to raise a variety of taxes in order to fund a massive $54 billion (US) transit construction program to 2040. --- Meanwhile for an urban region with more than double the population of Seattle, Metrolinx’s The Big Move calls for spending $50 billion on new transit in the same period across the GTHA.

- To make matters worse, TTC users have faced annual fare increases since 2010. It is no surprise that TTC per capita use peaked in 1988, when service was better, and fares were $1.65 (in 2017 dollars). Without adequate operating support from the province, the TTC continues to be the least-subsidized transit agency in the developed world, with an average per ride subsidy of 90 cents. Translink receives $1.62 per ride, while Seattle subsidizes each transit journey to the tune of $3.91 (US). --- While new infrastructure is certainly needed, other cities have learned that improving existing service as part of a comprehensive and reliably funded strategic plan is the quickest and most cost-effective means of improving transit ridership. Years of austerity that shows no signs of abating have left Torontonians with a transit system incapable of providing the service we deserve.

.....

[Crawford]

Toronto has significantly higher ridership than any West Coast city in either country, so fakenews.

Comparative rate of growth over a few months is basically useless. There are plenty of reasons for city-specific seasonal swings.

[C.]

Originally Posted by crawford

toronto has significantly higher ridership than any west coast city in either country, so fakenews.

Comparative rate of growth over a few months is basically useless. There are plenty of reasons for city-specific seasonal swings.

+1

[emathias]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

West Coast Cities are Putting Toronto to Shame When It Comes to Transit Ridership
...

I'm always a bit skeptical of comparing relatively young systems in high-growth cities to much older systems in cities that are effectively built out in the existing footprint of transit. Yes, better advance planning for Toronto might have had better results, but it's still not an easy comparison to make well.

As for Seattle, is throwing that much money at subsidies actually sustainable? I believe that subsidy amount is higher than Chicago's entire coast per ride. It also benefits greatly from Amazon locating downtown and basically deciding to completely rebuild Belltown and South Lake Union. Not every city has proximate areas where that can be done, especially not also with one of the wealthiest companies in the world pushing that development.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by emathias

I'm always a bit skeptical of comparing relatively young systems in high-growth cities to much older systems in cities that are effectively built out

San Francisco was founded in 1776 and was "built out" when some cities to its east were dreams in some developer's eye.

It has had well-used public transit for 150 years.

SF horsecar barn 1875


Geography note: We are on the west coast of North America

[ChargerCarl]

Relative to American cities both Toronto and Vancouver do a good job in cost control, usefulness of projects, and permitting density.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Relative to American cities both Toronto and Vancouver do a good job in cost control, usefulness of projects, and permitting density.

Toronto does not have such a good track record in usefulness of projets or cost control in the last 15 years.

On top of my mind:
- York-Spadina Subway extension going north of Steeles
- Extension of the Bloor Line to Scarborough at a cost of $3.5B for a single stop
- The Sheppard Subway

The York-Spadina extension started in 2008 and will open nearly ten years later with a 600 million cost increase.

Not to bash Toronto but it's really not a reference. The grass is always greener on the other side

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Toronto does not have such a good track record in usefulness of projets or cost control in the last 15 years.

On top of my mind:
- York-Spadina Subway extension going north of Steeles
- Extension of the Bloor Line to Scarborough at a cost of $3.5B for a single stop
- The Sheppard Subway

The York-Spadina extension started in 2008 and will open nearly ten years later with a 600 million cost increase.

Not to bash Toronto but it's really not a reference. The grass is always greener on the other side

Like I said, relative to American cities. (It's that bad)

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Like I said, relative to American cities. (It's that bad)

Well New York is bad, Chicago is stagnant but Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Washington and LA are doing pretty good.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Well New York is bad, Chicago is stagnant but Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Washington and LA are doing pretty good.

You have it completely reversed. Portland, Denver and LA have comically horrific transit for global first world standards. Chicago and DC have mediocre transit; NYC is really the only U.S. city where transit is the norm and feasible for typical families.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Well New York is bad, Chicago is stagnant but Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Washington and LA are doing pretty good.

LA builds decent projects on time within a somewhat reasonable budget.

SF does not, and DC's system is horribly mismanaged.

[mthd]

of course, there are many ways to look at these statistics - commute only vs all trips, city limits vs metro, but this chart from wikipedia more or less mirrors the trends i've seen elsewhere. san francisco generally has a similar or slightly higher share of transit trips than toronto does - as well as a SIGNIFICANTLY lower percentage of trips by automobile than toronto or any other west coast city.



and yes, as noted, it is in fact on the west coast.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mthd

of course, there are many ways to look at these statistics - commute only vs all trips, city limits vs metro, but this chart from wikipedia more or less mirrors the trends i've seen elsewhere. san francisco generally has a similar or slightly higher share of transit trips than toronto does - as well as a SIGNIFICANTLY lower percentage of trips by automobile than toronto or any other west coast city.



and yes, as noted, it is in fact on the west coast.

You mention city limits vs metro, but you don't mention that some city limits cover a significantly larger proportion of a metro than others. Numbers in that table show modal share of journeys to work for San Francisco city (generally the densest and central-most 850k of the metro) and for Toronto city limits (around 2.7 million of the metro including both central Toronto's and large swaths of inner suburb). To get a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare either 850k of Toronto's most central areas, or a significantly larger part of the SF region.

Although those stats might be tough to find, so a metro area comparison might be the only alternative.

[Crawford]

Yeah, as Nouvellecosse indicated, if SF and Toronto city propers have similar transit share, then Toronto is much more transit-oriented.

Toronto city proper is mostly postwar suburbia. The old city of Toronto would be apples-to-apples comparable to SF proper. The best comparison would be Bay Area to GTA, and that would should considerably higher transit orientation in Toronto.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, as Nouvellecosse indicated, if SF and Toronto city propers have similar transit share, then Toronto is much more transit-oriented.

Toronto city proper is mostly postwar suburbia. The old city of Toronto would be apples-to-apples comparable to SF proper. The best comparison would be Bay Area to GTA, and that would should considerably higher transit orientation in Toronto.

Nice try.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Nice try.

What did I write that would lead you to respond "nice try"? I'm genuinely confused.

[electricron]

You are comparing apples with oranges....

Both cities mentioned above have overcrowded trains and overcrowded highways. No one really wants to drive through them during rush hour, and no one really wants to ride in the over crowded trains during rush hour either. Pick your poison, at least you have a choice...

[Nouvellecosse]

^ The only issue with that, is that in much of the developed world, "electrified, all-day train service with 15-minute headways" isn't better than typical commuter rail, it IS typical commuter rail. And therefore it doesn't warrant any special designation like something more rarefied would.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ The only issue with that, is that in much of the developed world, "electrified, all-day train service with 15-minute headways" isn't better than typical commuter rail, it IS typical commuter rail. And therefore it doesn't warrant any special designation like something more rarefied would.

So, how would you qualify GO RER? If it's basically the same as Denver's commuter rail with more capacity.

[nito]

GO RER looks to be promising multiple service improvements, but at the end of the day it is a marketing brand for an upgraded commuter rail service.