Who's done better on transit? Vancouver or Toronto

[11th]

Vancouver has built a rapid transit system that same size as Toronto's in just 30 years.

I'm not sure if it's relevant, but Vancouver also hosted an expo and the winter Olympics in just 30 years.

 

[44 North]

I'm not sure if it's relevant, but Vancouver also hosted an expo and the winter Olympics in just 30 years.

It's extremely relevant. But so is the BurOak's points (and IMO the underlying points about the affordability of VanCity's use of elevated light RT). Obviously Skytrain/ICTS isn't standard LRT, but considering all its attributes I think it'd fall into the 'light' category of transportation infrastructure instead of heavy rail. Combined with Expo and the Olympics, this is how they've been able to achieve such a large and growing network of real grade-separate rapid transit in such a short time.

 

[ssiguy2]

Sorry I meant to say #5 in per-capita ridership behind Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, and Calgary and only slightly ahead of Edmonton.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It's extremely relevant. But so is the BurOak's points (and IMO the underlying points about the affordability of VanCity's use of elevated light RT). Obviously Skytrain/ICTS isn't standard LRT, but considering all its attributes I think it'd fall into the 'light' category of transportation infrastructure instead of heavy rail. Combined with Expo and the Olympics, this is how they've been able to achieve such a large and growing network of real grade-separate rapid transit in such a short time.

It's definitely light.

And their decision to go with light RT wasn't a smart one. They're already facing capacity issues, from what I understand d

 

[44 North]

It's definitely light.

And their decision to go with light RT wasn't a smart one. They're already facing capacity issues, from what I understand d

Canada Line is a bit iffy because the trains are a lot wider, and it's a standalone system incompatible with MKI and II. But re: the capacity issues, I think that's not so much a problem with Light RT per se, but rather not having the foresight to have stations that can be extended and/or building more double/triple track. Obviously once stations get into 150m lengths the system moves into 'heavy rail' territory. But I think that should've been kept in mind.

But another important issue, regardless of heavy or light classification (and just as it is with our Yonge Line) is not building relief lines and adding network redundancy when needed - and instead opting for projects that are more politically expedient and which tend to be outside of core areas. If trains/stations can't be lengthened, an obvious remedy would be to build a parallel line. But many times this notion gets lost on gov'ts, and instead an over-capacity line is lengthened.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Vancouver has built a rapid transit system that same size as Toronto's in just 30 years.

And the ridership is nowhere near Toronto's.

 

[crs1026]

Tory spent a lot of time with the Civic Action group making a case for revenue vehicles.....and then thought better of it. Wynne commissioned an expert panel and espoused having an "adult conversation"....and then thought better of it. Clark blundered her way into an "adult conversation"....and lost. So much for putting faith in the political process to move things forward.

Both Vancouver and Toronto owe their latest showy transit project to external commitments.....the Canada line was for the Olympics, and UPE was for Pan Am. Both are run with cost recovery in mind at the farebox.

Meanwhile, the bureacracy is plodding ahead with a variety of less flashy things that are actually getting done....TYSSE and Crosstown and GO improvements in Toronto, Bridges in Vancouver. So maybe 'tax and spend' works, even if the right wing rails against it.

My impression as a tourist is that the Vancouver system is cleaner and better maintained than Toronto's. But BC is a more labour oriented culture, so worker productivity may be more of an issue. I have not done any research to find data to support this one way or the other. On balance, Ontario seems to have more new projects in play, but project management isn't a strength.

My bottom line? Ontario has lots of deficiencies, so we should not throw stones in BC's direction. But pure inertia is on our side, lots is happening. Our big risk is that the taxpayer will get satiated with transit announcements, and some other unfunded issue will take the spotlight. Whereas BC is now in a standstill.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

My impression as a tourist is that the Vancouver system is cleaner and better maintained than Toronto's. But BC is a more labour oriented culture, so worker productivity may be more of an issue

Can you elaborate on this? Do more people in Vancouver work in labour jobs (such as construction), making transit less attractive?

On balance, Ontario seems to have more new projects in play, but project management isn't a strength.

It's not a strength in BC either. Apparently TransLink has botched a few projects, and they don't have very much confidence from the public. From what I've read, there's greater distrust of TransLink in Vancouver than there is of Metrolinx/TTC in Toronto.

 

[mrjun18]

Vancouver has built a rapid transit system that same size as Toronto's in just 30 years.

Isn't the skytrain, two-car trains across the city? That isn't exactly the same size as Toronto's.

 

[andrewpmk]

Definitely Vancouver. Vancouver has built far more subway lines than anywhere else in Canada in the last few years.

Toronto has made far too many bad decisions about transit due to politics, e.g. the decision to build only half of the Sheppard subway, the decision to build underground LRT instead of subway on Eglinton, and the decision to design the UP Express so that regular GO trains cannot use it. The whole Miller LRT fiasco and the crazy transit politics under Ford makes Toronto look bad. Vancouver's only bad decision is to make the Canada Line platforms far too short, otherwise it has done a far better job than Toronto. However, I think Toronto may be able to catch up in the next decade - the Regional Express Rail program will result in Toronto having the best commuter rail system in North America, the "SmartTrack" proposal is basically a rebuilding of the UP Express spur to allow regular GO trains to use it, and to serve Airport Corporate Centre as well (rather similar to the Heathrow Express spur), and if the Don Mills subway line (aka downtown relief line) is built it will be a major improvement.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Depends on your definition of "subway". According to Rob Ford, Vancouver does not have a "subway", since according to Rob it MUST be heavy rail.

In actuality, even Montréal's Metro is not a "subway" either since it too is not "heavy rail", with trains cars smaller than our new Flexity Outlook streetcars or Flexity Freedom light rail vehicles. That's using Rob Ford's definition.

Actually, any electric underground railway can be a "subway". Including the streetcars using the Bay Street tunnels to Union Station.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It's definitely a subway system. The trains are just tiny in size compared to Toronto's.

Keep in mind that Torontonians have a really skewed view of what normal subway trains are. The TTC's subway rolling stock uses some of the biggest trains I've ever seen. To Torontonians, Vancouver's system would appear to be running on "toy" trains. I've heard it described as such on a few occasions.

Compared to the rest of the world, Vancouver's trains would probably be on the smaller size, but not unreasonably so.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Stephen Rees' thoughts, from this link:

It wasn’t supposed to pass

The word “blog” is a contraction of “web log”: a record of a “journey” across the web and the sites visited. The announcement of the results of the plebiscite on transportation investment funding produced the very rapid response we have come to expect on twitter and the instant analysis. Of course a lot of organisations were involved and most had their pre prepared press releases ready. Many claimed to have correctly predicted the outcome in advance. I had declined to appear on Global TV since I did not have such a position ready. But on reflection it became clear to me that the reason the question was made non-binding by Christy Clark was that she did not want to have to abide by an answer she did not like. And the glee that was evident on the face of Todd Stone when talking to the press pretty much confirmed that.

Of course I was not the only person to think that. Gary Mason of the Globe lists the reasons why “The referendum was an unmitigated disaster from the start.” Todd Stone doesn’t think it was a disaster – he thinks there should be more of them. But only for transit of course, not major road projects, or healthcare or education. Crawford Killian in the Tyee was far ahead of the Globe writing that the referendum was designed to fail back in February.

Much of the “analysis” was simply opinion based on preferred anecdotes. But there is some actual data based on surveys conducted by Insights West and Angus Reid. They come to similar conclusions about why people voted No. Of course since Jordan Bateman got busy far before the Yes side was even organised his simple message, the Translink was not to be trusted, got across. None of the subsequent analysis which showed that Translink is actually quite well managed dented that. Which is what I told the Vancouver Observer. The real problem is the governance model and that was created by The BC Liberals when the previous board of elected municipal officials (mostly Mayors) took exception to the way that the province wanted to put building the Canada Line ahead of the Evergreen Line (which is still not finished). So I cannot agree with Mario Canseco’s conclusion that reforming the way Translink operates ought to be the first priority – even if both Yes and No voters agree on that. It is the way it is governed that is the problem.

Discourse Media does have some good data driven information on what the No vote means. But no recommendations on what to do to achieve that. Richard Zussman of the CBC is good on why referenda are not the way to proceed. I think that means that if the province does propose another one we should organize a resounding boycott of the proceedings. Badly run referenda are designed to produce a negative response and I do not think that the province is actually interested in a better form of communication. Why would they when they got the result they desired.

The idea that I have proposed to reform Translink’s governance – a directly elected regional board – seems to be getting some traction. There is growing disquiet too with Metro Vancouver – which is indirectly elected and also seen as remote from electoral control. If we were actually serious about doing regional planning and transportation properly, we would follow the example of cities like London, England or Portland, Oregon. I would be very surprised indeed if that actually happened. If anything at all I expect there will be some more shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic. Maybe another name change and new livery: more communications/marketing bafflegab. No real change. It is a long time before we have another provincial election, and no matter how bad the government, if it simply ignores everything going on – the scandals this government is surviving would have brought out the media in rage if it had been an NDP government – it might even get re-elected, despite its obvious incompetence.

So what happens now? Human Transit is, as always, very illuminating.

 

[crs1026]

Can you elaborate on this? Do more people in Vancouver work in labour jobs (such as construction), making transit less attractive?

What I meant is that the BC labour codes are a little more provident than Ontario. So, more work rules etc within the transit operations. I'm speculating that it takes more labour hours/dollars per passenger to run their systems. Thus less productive, but possibly harder for management to cut corners in areas such as cleaning.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

Hating your transit agency won't make it better

See link from Human Transit:

The Vancouver metro area has now reached the climax of a frenzy of orchestrated rage directed at its transit agency, TransLink. Over 60% of voters have rejected a sales tax increase for urgently needed transit growth, largely due to an effective campaign that made the transit agency's alleged incompetence the issue.

There's just one problem. TransLink is (or was) one of North America's most effective transit agencies. Parts of the agency had made mistakes, and the governance is dysfunctional, and of course TransLink was struggling to meet exploding demand in one of the world's most desirable metro areas. But TransLink is, or was, an effective network, run by a reasonably efficient agency. For years I cited it all over the world as a model for good planning. Whether it remains that depends on how much of it is now destroyed in the thrill of recrimination.

Admittedly, I have a personal angle on this, because I worked inside TransLink's planning department for two long stints, for a year in 2005-6 and for six months in 2011. (I have assisted them as a consultant since, but I have no contracts with TransLink now and no expectation of one.) It was, I thought, an unusually forward-thinking and principle-driven transit planning department. I assumed this was an expression of Metro Vancouver's unusual culture of intentional, strategic, controlled urban development. It also reflected an era of leadership that created the space for these thoughts to occur, as opposed to the crisis-by-crisis lifestyle that too often prevails in transit management.

The conversations that were happening at TransLink -- especially about the difficult question of how a regional transit agency can form a reality-based relationship with its constituent cities -- were extremely sophisticated and respectful. How should a large regional agency interact with city governments when it holds the technical expertise about transit that city governments mostly lack? For example, when a city government demands something that is geometrically impossible, how can the transit agency's response avoid appearing overbearing? Much of what I now know about this relationship, and the unavoidable forces operating on it, I figured out while helping with policy development there.

Today, those issues are at the core of my practice, as the relationship between city governments and transit authorities becomes an urgent issue almost everywhere.

Special-purpose regional governments are vulnerable creatures. The marquee leaders of an urban region -- usually major mayors and state/province leaders -- influence them but don't control them directly enough to feel responsible for them. Blame is easily shifted to them by the more powerful governments all around them.

All this is even more true when the product is transit, for four reasons.

First, transit somehow looks easy, in a way that water and power and regional land use planning do not. Many reporters have no factual frame for thinking about transit, and treat anyone with a simplistic answer as an expert. (Tip: my book can help provide that frame.)

Second, transit's success is utterly dependent on municipal actions around land use and street design, so regional transit agencies that are thinking strategically must form an interest in those municipal decisions. This is easily characterized as interference with municipal sovereignty. (I always advise transit agencies to respect local right to make decisions but to clearly describe the transit consequences of those decisions, in advance.)

Third, everyone is now screaming at transit agencies to innovate, and yet voters have zero tolerance for risk. Some of TransLink's failures are arguably innovations that didn't work out. If you expect everything your agency does to be successful, then quit telling them to innovate, because failure is intrinsic to innovation.

Fourth, transit, when considered in isolation as in Metro Vancouver's referendum, cannot avoid generating a ferocious difference in opinion across different parts of an urban region. In any region, maps of votes on transit referenda are mostly maps of residential density (Vancouver, Seattle), and for good reason. Transit demand rises exponentially with density: doubling density makes it more than twice as urgent. So of course the average core city dweller views transit as existential while the average outer-suburbanite on a cul-de-sac views it as unimportant. Giant regional transit agencies will continue to be pulled apart by these forces until we stop having regional transit debates and start having regional transportation debates. (The other important trend, in response to this basic math, is that core cities must exert more leadership, and funding, on their own transit issues. More on that below.)

What is amazing, then, is not that regional transit agencies are having political problems, but that so many of them are doing so well, considering. Many regions are moving forward with strong regional transit strategies, supported by working majorities of voters. Many are also making tough choices, like the painful shift in priorities that underlies Houston's new network.

Hating your transit agency is easy and fun. You don't have to understand your regional politics, in which the real power to fix transit is usually not held by the transit agency. You can also have the thrill of blowing up a big institutional edifice, as Metro Vancouver voters may now have done.

But a lot that's good will also be destroyed. In Metro Vancouver, amid all the recriminations, TransLink has lost the credibility it needs to lead reality-based conversations about transit. Maybe some other agency will step into that role. (Indeed, core cities for whom transit is an existential issue must develop that capability.) Or maybe there will just be many more years of blame shifting among the elected officials who really control transit in the region.

If you look at transit from the point of view of a state or province leader, you can understand why so many politicians are terrified of the issue. Everyone is screaming at them about it, pushing simplistic solutions, and the issue is polarizing on urban-suburban lines. Some huge problems, like equipment failures due to deferred maintenance, are curses laid upon us all by our parents' generation. What's more, most elite leaders are motorists, and need help finding their feet in the geometric facts of transit where a motorists' assumptions lead them astray. So they panic, shift blame, and leave transit agencies appearing to have more power to solve problems than they actually have. If you've never been a political leader, don't be sure you wouldn't do the same in their place.

Be patient. Breathe. Resist the desire to see your transit agency in smoldering ruins. Then, demand leadership. Demand state/provincial leadership that looks for solutions instead of pointlessly stoking urban-suburban conflict. (One possible solution is to spend more time on regional transportation debates instead of just transit debates, because regional transportation plans can look more balanced than transit plans can.) And yes, if your transit agency is being given dysfunctional direction by the region's leaders, demand a better system with more accountability to an elected official who will have to answer for outcomes.

Finally, if you live in a major city that cares about transit, demand that your city leaders look beyond blaming the transit agency, and that they do everything they can themselves to make their transit better. Remember, your city government, through its powers of land use planning and street design, controls transit at least as much as the transit agency does. Ask them: What is their transit plan? Tell them to follow the work of cities that are investing in transit themselves, beyond what their transit agency can afford, like Seattle and Washington DC., or for that matter transit-ambitious secondary cities like Bellevue, Washington, who have their own transit plans to guide the city's work. No regional or state transit authority -- beholden to state or regionwide government that is dominated by less urban interests -- is going to meet all of the transit needs of a dense, core city that has chosen to make transit a foundation of its livability. Their staff may well be doing what they can with the direction that they have, but they need your city government's active support, involvement, leadership, and investment.

Sorry, transit is complicated. It's fun to blow things up, as Metro Vancouver's voters probably have. But the solutions are out there, if we all demand leadership, and offer it.