Transport study derails thinking on outer suburbs

[M II A II R II K]

Transport study derails thinking on outer suburbs


January 5, 2011

By Andrew West

Read More: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/t...thinking-on-outer-suburbs-20110104-19f3c.html

RESIDENTS in the outer suburbs should not have to wait for higher housing densities before getting better public transport, according to research that could defuse one of the most bitter controversies in urban planning. In a paper for the journal Australian Planner, Dr John Stone, of the University of Melbourne, and Dr Paul Mees, of RMIT University, argue that many city dwellers have been presented with a false choice - live in apartments and enjoy good public transport or retain the house and land and rely on cars.

- ''Many planners, and other commentators on urban issues, appear to believe that getting significantly more people on public transport will not be possible until massive changes in suburban densities are achieved,'' they write. ''The evidence challenges this view.'' Their study - which is part of a collection being prepared for the Council of Australian Governments on the dangers of relying on diminishing supplies of oil - finds that cities with densities comparable with Melbourne and Sydney, such as Toronto, Ottawa and greater New York, have better public transport than Australia's two biggest cities.

- While greater New York, not just the skyscraper-dominated Manhattan, has 20.5 people to the hectare, Sydney has 20.4 people. Melbourne, with 15.7 people to the hectare, has only slightly lower density than Ottawa, with 17.2 people. Their research compares public transport in similar North American cities, and some European cities, such as suburban Zurich in Switzerland, but not in the extremely dense cities of Asia, such as Hong Kong and Tokyo.

- Dr Mees said higher densities did not always mean better mass transit, citing the relatively low rail and bus use in Los Angeles, even though it is the most densely populated city in the United States. ''There is no doubt that a compact and connected urban form enhances the potential for oil-free mobility through walking, cycling, and greater public transport use,'' the authors write.

- ''However, we … argue that it is not necessary to intensify land-use across the whole city before significant improvement in both patronage and economic efficiency of public transport becomes possible.'' The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are more frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak hour; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers; and fares that allow free transfers between modes.

...

 

[howl]

Overall density numbers are very misleading. A city with a low overall density may be made up of a number of very high density nodes, which is good for transit, surrounded by very low density areas. A city with a relatively high overall density may be uniformly middle-of-the-road as far as density with no real nodes or centre which is not so good for transit. Most transit system work best when there are walkable higher-density neighbourhoods around the stations, or where there are park-and-ride lots. Also the alternatives to transit, such as the number of highways and their capacity plays a large role in whether people will choose transit.

However I DO think that transit must be built first in order to be a catalyst for higher density development. If you wait for the development to come first you will never get high quality walkable developments or your transit system will always be ten-years behind where it should be.

 

[leopetr]

A comment I just saw on Steve Munro's site [made by a third-party commenter who is not Steve Munro] is that transit in Toronto is relatively popular because our system is organized so that the bus routes are feeders to higher order transit and transferring between routes and modes is free. This is not the case for Los Angeles (which has a very similar average density to Toronto's) or some of the Australian cities.

 

[doady]

A comment I just saw on Steve Munro's site is that transit in Toronto is relatively popular because our system is organized so that the bus routes are feeders to higher order transit and transferring between routes and modes is free. This is not the case for Los Angeles (which has a very similar average density to Toronto's) or some of the Australian cities.

Even without higher order transit, transit ridership in the GTA is still very high. Just look at Hurontario for example, no connection to the subway. As usual, Steve Munro doesn't know what he's talking about. The most successful bus routes in the GTA are trunk routes, not feeder routes. Sheppard, Hurontario, Jane, Finch, etc. - these are all trunk routes. People don't just transfer from bus to subway, they also transfer from bus to bus.

New York City overall may have low density, but New York City proper, where the vast majority of transit service and ridership is located, is extremely high density. In suburban NYC, transit is a joke. The only transit that is effective in NYC's suburbs is transit that is reliant on park-and-ride, because the density is too low. You won't find any bus routes like the 5 Dixie or 11 Steeles in Westchester County. Simply not enough people live within walking distance of transit routes and stops in suburban NYC. Low density = larger distances. So density has a huge effect on the effectiveness of transit (just as does for walking and biking).

Toronto's suburban may not have density of NYC proper but they're still pretty dense by suburban standards, so the average bus stop has more people within walking distance. Plus, subdivisions are designed so that pedestrians can walk directly into arterial corridors (further minimizing walking distances), which you won't see in Australian or US cities.

But as howl pointed out, transit can affects density and development as well. You can't have truly high density if everyone drives their own car, because too much space would be required for parking, and the roads will be too wide. So if the goal is increase density, transit can't be ignored either.

 

[LowerBay]

As usual, Steve Munro doesn't know what he's talking about ...

Amen to that. I find it very hard to take him seriously anymore.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You guys think he sucks because someone paraphrased a comment from his site praising the TTC' for having free transfers between vehicle types?

 

[leopetr]

As usual, Steve Munro

The comment was made by someone else.

People don't just transfer from bus to subway, they also transfer from bus to bus.

In Los Angeles, which has a similar average density to Toronto, you have to pay to transfer from bus to bus.

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/11/connection-fare-penalties-why-they-happen.html

 

[doady]

The comment was made by someone else.

Oh my mistake then. Apologies to Steve Munro! It was kind of late when I made that post. It's that person that made that comment doesn't know what he/she's talking about then.

In Los Angeles, which has a similar average density to Toronto, you have to pay to transfer from bus to bus.

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/11/connection-fare-penalties-why-they-happen.html

The fares in LA are much lower though, so the cost of trips with transfers is the same as Toronto. And in Toronto, the cost of trips without transfers is much higher. Plus, LA has weekly and monthly passes just like Toronto.

Honestly, I think one major difference is cultural. Even if transit in suburbs of LA were free, most people would still not give up their cars. They will get very angry, defensive and hostile if you even suggest the idea of living with three cars instead of four. The rest of the US is probably not much different.

It's not just suburban Toronto that has high transit ridership compared to suburban LA, NYC, Sydney, etc, it's also suburban Montreal, London, Vancouver, Calgary, etc. Canadian systems simply have higher ridership than Australian systems, and Australian systems have higher ridership than US systems, regardless of density or fares or anything else.

 

[Paleo]

Sheppard, Hurontario, Jane, Finch, etc. - these are all trunk routes. People don't just transfer from bus to subway, they also transfer from bus to bus.

Could have fooled me. Most people on Sheppard and Finch bus are in fact heading to and from the subway.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And even a Sheppard Subway would sure add to the service but not relieve the already existing service, so more relieving lines should be added as well.

 

[Electrify]

Wait... Los Angeles is the most densely populated city in the US?!?

 

[Jonny5]

Wait... Los Angeles is the most densely populated city in the US?!?

"Lies, damn lies and statistics." Los Angelas (the city?, the county?, the metro?, the urban area?) has the highest *average* density in the US.

Though I'd love to know the average walking time to transit for a city's residents.

 

[doady]

Could have fooled me. Most people on Sheppard and Finch bus are in fact heading to and from the subway.

Considering that overall bus boardings is 40% higher than subway boardings, that means that there can only be at most 72% of bus riders are heading to and from the subway, and that's assuming that every single subway rider transfers to/from the bus and none of these riders ever transfer from one subway line to another and that TTC bus/subway riders never ever transfer to the RT, streetcar, or 905 bus.

TTC Average Weekday Boardings 2009
Subway 927,800
Bus 1,296,300

EDit: But according to the TTC, there were around 1 million transfers, and 435,000 of these were rail-to-rail transfers. So the amount of bus-to-rail transfers could only be 565,000 at most, so around only 44% of the total bus ridership transfers to subway/RT, at most, and that's assuming that there are not a single bus-to-bus or bus-to-streetcar transfer.

You can also look at the individual station ridership. Finch Station sees about 95,000 ridership. The combined ridership of the Finch and Steeles and other TTC buses is around 140,000, so that means the only around two-thirds of the ridership of these buses are transferring to/from the subway, and that's assuming the station has no walk-in ridership and that it has no riders from the 905.

But you can believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[leopetr]

The fares in LA are much lower though, so the cost of trips with transfers is the same as Toronto.

That's not how human psychology works, though. If someone has to pay every time they transfer, they will avoid transferring no matter how little transferring costs.

Consider the difference between having a metropass and using tokens in Toronto. With a metropass, you can jump on whatever's coming and go anywhere at a moment's notice. With tokens, you will walk that extra block or plan your trip so you spend fewer of them.

It's like car vs taxi. If a car is costing you $5000 a year and it would be cheaper to get rid of it and take taxis instead, you are not actually going to take those taxis if you get rid of the car. People would rather make one payment of a lot than many payments of a little.

 

[doady]

That's not how human psychology works, though. If someone has to pay every time they transfer, they will avoid transferring no matter how little transferring costs.

Consider the difference between having a metropass and using tokens in Toronto. With a metropass, you can jump on whatever's coming and go anywhere at a moment's notice. With tokens, you will walk that extra block or plan your trip so you spend fewer of them.

It's like car vs taxi. If a car is costing you $5000 a year and it would be cheaper to get rid of it and take taxis instead, you are not actually going to take those taxis if you get rid of the car. People would rather make one payment of a lot than many payments of a little.

Yeah I don't disagree with you. Plus, Canadian systems can get away with higher fares than US systems. I think having free transfers is important, but don't think the ridership there is that bad in first place compared to other US systems. I don't think the lack of transfers is a major reason LA has lower transit ridership than Toronto. Plus, in Toronto there are a lot of people who pay to transfer as well, between TTC and MT/YRT.

Check out the stats for urban area ridership across Canada and the US. LA isn't THAT bad, is it? Just look at the all the US cities at the bottom of the list, it indicates problems much deeper than just lack of free transfers.

[B]ANNUAL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP PER CAPITA - US AND CANADA[/B]

[B]								Boardings
Rank	Urban Area		Boardings	Population	per capita[/B]
1	Montreal		743,000,000	3,316,615	224
2	New York-Newark		3,453,093,200	17,773,000	194
3	Toronto			858,000,000	4,753,120	181
4	Ottawa-Kanata		152,000,000	946,050		161
5	Vancouver		284,132,400	1,953,252	145
6	Calgary			129,997,400	988,079		132
7	Washington		461,502,800	4,251,000	109
8	San Francisco-Oakland	427,764,500	4,170,000	103
	-Concord-Antioch
9	Boston			401,542,300	4,077,000	98
10	Winnipeg		58,100,000	641,483		91
11	Honolulu-Kailua-Kaneohe 64,976,200	744,000		87
12	Victoria		25,586,100	304,683		84
13	Chicago			603,966,200	7,702,000	78
14	Champaign		8,910,500	116,000		77
15	Philadelphia		352,923,000	5,296,000	67
16	Portland		110,634,100	1,729,000	64
17	Halifax			18,074,400	282,924		64
18	London			20,950,800	353,069		59
19	LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana	666,952,400	12,149,000	55
20	Seattle			159,698,800	3,002,000	53
21	Baltimore		105,151,300	2,149,000	49
22	North Bay		2,574,547	53,100		48
23	Hamilton		29,898,663	647,643		46
24	Guelph			5,679,575	127,270		45
25	Kitchener-Waterloo	18,718,811	422,514		44
26	Las Vegas		53,571,400	1,256,000	43
27	Pittsburgh		70,268,700	1,769,000	40
28	Milwaulkee		53,096,400	1,399,000	38
29	Cleveland		66,610,200	1,767,000	38
30	Denver-Aurora-Boulder	86,260,600	2,311,000	37
	-Longmont-Lafayette-Louisville
31	Atlanta			150,252,400	4,172,000	36
32	Peterborough		2,711,100	76,925		35
33	Thunder Bay		3,570,825	103,247		35
34	Minneapolis-St Paul	81,021,800	2,519,000	32
35	San Diego		89,924,400	2,903,000	31
36	Kingston		3,272,328	109,431		30
37	Miami			158,502,100	5,331,000	30
38	Sault Ste Marie (CAN)	1,882,773	68,084		28	
39	San Jose		39,132,500	1,649,000	24
40	St. Louis		48,902,300	2,106,000	23
41	Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arl.	82,019,800	3,746,000	22
42	Salt Lake City-Ogden	36,649,900	1,889,000	19
	-Provo-Orem
43	Sacramento		32,862,800	1,767,000	19
44	Orlando			24,807,600	1,335,000	19
45	Phoenix-Mesa		60,477,100	3,270,000	18
46	Providence		20,175,200	1,242,000	16
47	Virginia Beach		24,241,500	1,521,000	16
48	Riverside-S.Bernardino	23,322,400	1,828,000	13
49	Columbus		14,789,500	1,197,000	12
50	Detroit			47,558,500	3,931,000	12
51	Jacksonville		11,296,900	992,000		11
52	Tampa-St. Petersburg	22,992,900	2,251,000	10
53	Kansas City		14,506,200	1,454,000	10
54	Indianapolis		8,810,200	915,000		10
55	Nashville		7,465,300	984,000		8

Canadian data from 2006 and American data from 2005. 		
Some Canadian ridership and all American population totals are estimated.