Why is commuter/regional rail so bad in Canada?

[W. K. Lis]

Kathleen Wynne announces $29 billion transit and transportation plan


Look like someone heard you. Maybe a small step, but a step nonetheless. See link.

Download the speech from this link by Premier Kathleen Wynne on Moving Ontario Forward.

 

[MisterF]

Right, Ajax is closer than Kitchener. That's the point, not that population drops off or anything. People in Kitchener (or London, or Brantford, or Welland, or...) are more or less self-selecting to not want to travel regularly to Toronto. If being able to quickly access Toronto/GTA was important to them they wouldn't live so far away, and vice versa.

Yes, undoubtedly, if we somehow doubled regional rail speeds in the region and improved frequency more people would choose to use rail travel. That's just obvious. I think if you actually looked at census numbers you'd see how rare these trips are, though. You can't simply rely on "if you build it, they will come" to ignore how thin these travel markets are to begin with.

There's a strong market now. You keep saying how limited the market is for travel between Kitchener and Toronto, but somebody's riding the 82 GO and Greyhound buses that travel that route every day. Not to mention the 100,000+ cars on that stretch of the 401 every day. A strong rail connection will increase demand even more.

Of course, nobody's touched on the other benefits of a strong rail system, like increased safety, more reliable service (especially in winter), speed, and reduced pollution and health care costs to name a few.

Yes, in fairness the comparison is slightly skewed in a number of ways. Melbourne suburban trains also cover a similar market to the TTC subway.

Nonetheless, even just looking at Victoria, V/Line ridership is a very small fraction of services within the Melbourne commuter-shed.

We used to have a passenger train to North Bay and nobody took it!

I also don't think highway operating subsidies would amount to 18$/passenger... Even if they did, the proper solution is to introduce road pricing, not a new form of subsidized transit.

V/Line is a small fraction of the Melbourne services for the same reason that VIA accounts for a fraction of travel within Toronto - that's not what it was designed for. As for North Bay, that's a classic example of a service that was planned to fail. Right from the start it had little to no investment, so the trains were slow and infrequent with inconvenient schedules and obsolete equipment. The fact that it bypassed Barrie and Orillia didn't help. Meanwhile, the province spent countless millions (actually it was probably billions if these costs are typical) on a new expressway to North Bay. They stacked the deck in favour of driving, so of course people drive. That money could easily have built a successful rail line. Like I said before, it's just the choices we make.

Then Sudbury would have to build a much more robust local transit system to get people from the rail station to wherever they want to go in the region.

Not sure why this would be needed. Is the transit in Australian towns any better than cities like Sudbury? Sure transit would likely grow to meet the demand, but buses are only one option to get people to and from the station. People can park at the station, take a taxi, or have a spouse drop them off. GO Transit has built much of their business on this model.

 

[mrgrieves]

I used to take the Deux-Montagnes line in Montreal. I know its electrified and it definitely goes much fast than the GO Trains. Anyone know how fast it goes at peak speeds? I would imagine it must be close to 150kmh to 160kmh...The stops are quite close so I don't think it hits top speed for too long.

One thing Montreal did right was build a tunnel through Mount Royal to connect to Central Station which seems to also speed up travel time as the GO Trains go quite slow near Union.

 

[innsertnamehere]

they built that tunnel as the detour around mount royal is so large, and to use the tunnel they need electrified rail, if the geography of Toronto existed none of AMTs lines would be electrified.

 

[rbt]

I used to take the Deux-Montagnes line in Montreal. I know its electrified and it definitely goes much fast than the GO Trains. Anyone know how fast it goes at peak speeds? I would imagine it must be close to 150kmh to 160kmh...The stops are quite close so I don't think it hits top speed for too long.

The new dual-mode engines bought by AMT have a max speed 80mph (130km/h) in electric mode and 65mph in diesel mode and travel time was expected to improve with these engines, so previous (2011 and earlier) top speeds were below 80mph (I thought 65mph).

No doubt they accelerate faster than GO but AMT trains do not have a higher top speed. That said, only GO express trains make good use of it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not really sure what you are saying .....I wasn't actually "telling" anyone anything....I was asking what percentage/share of regular short/mid haul users have metropasses (anectdotally in my small sample size it is a lot) because if it his a high percentage then increasing the number of those short/mid haul users is not, as the poster I responded to suggested, going to significantly increase revenue.

Honestly, doubt it's a high percentage. The pass is just priced too high for most users who would only use the TTC for commuting.

 

[TOareaFan]

Honestly, doubt it's a high percentage. The pass is just priced too high for most users who would only use the TTC for commuting.

I don't know...that is why I am asking (as I said, all of the regular users around my office have passes....but that may not mean much).

According to http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/weblog/2013/11/20-ttc_board_.shtml a pass is priced now at 49.5 trips....if all you did was commute from home to work....average month has 4.3 weeks....X 5 days X 2 = 43 so I guess you would have to make another 7 trips during the month to break even.......but the convenience must weigh in somewhere.

Anyway, not intending to debate the use/lack of use of the pass just trying to see if anyone knows what the rough breakdown is....because it really is a factor in determining the profitibility of adding new stops/routes in already served areas.

 

[kEiThZ]

Have to look at what percentage of revenue comes from passes vs. cash fares.

 

[Electrify]

Keep in mind for students and seniors it is 58.4 rides to break even! Pure gouging for "convenience" from the severely outdated fare media and user unfriendly transfer system that should have been updated DECADES ago!

For seniors, this lack of convenience is especially true since they may have to walk further because they cannot use automated entrances with tickets! For students, the psychological effect of being "charged" for every ride to the younger generation may push them away from transit when they get the ability to drive, since passes make so little economic sense!

 

[Electrify]

Have to look at what percentage of revenue comes from passes vs. cash fares.

Even so, how many of those pass rides that are over and above 40, let alone 50 or 60, are long distance and resource intensive? Willing to bet that the majority of them are relatively short and/or return trips and would be covered under a 2 hour transfer policy.