Re: New form of rail transportation

["Peter Parker" <parkerp@alphalink.com.au>]

Peter Berrett <pberrett@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
HZ5Q5.11285$Xx3.47286@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au">news:HZ5Q5.11285$Xx3.47286@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...

> Are we comparing apples with apples here? Is Toronto's transport system
> genuinely comparable with Melbourne's?.

The main difference is that the rail system in Melbourne largely preceded
development.  However
the rail system in Toronto is a postwar development.

Toronto has fewer tram routes and a much smaller subway
system (four radial lines) than Melbourne.  Also the normal subway lines do
not extend to the
outer limits of suburbia, so many travellers need to make quite long bus
trips to get to the subway.
In terms of transport infrastructure and hardware, Melbourne has much more
than Toronto, but we
are poor at using it effectively.

Patronage for the tram network is most similar between the two cities.  It
is no accident that trams in
Melbourne and Toronto provide roughly comparable service, with frequencies
more consistent throughout
day and night in Toronto.   There are large differences in train patronage
figures between the two cities. As
Tony has pointed out buses are very widely used to feed the subway in
Toronto, whereas that doesn't happen
to any great extent outside the peak hour in Melbourne.  The biggest
difference between Toronto and Melbourne
is in bus patronage.

> There could be cultural issues as well.

Melbourne's patronage has fallen rapidly since WW2, whereas Toronto has held
up.  The main reason for the
success of Toronto is the strong patronage in the middle suburbs, whereas in
Melbourne patronage drops off
steeply past about 10km from the city.   This is despite middle suburbs of
Toronto having more car-oriented
development (eg curvilinear roads, stand-alone shopping malls away from
stations, etc) than similar suburbs in
Melbourne.  Toronto however has a big patronage drop between the middle and
outer suburbs. Patronage
(and service quality) in these other areas is comparable to Melbourne.  The
main problem in Toronto is that
the outer suburbs are outside the TTC's network (frequent, co-ordinated
buses linking into trains and trams)
and so rely on infrequent buses like in Melbourne.

The 'means of production' are relevant - Melbourne's trains and trams were
constructed before widespread
car ownership and thus competed against themselves rather than against the
car.  This explains why routes
were designed to poach each others passengers (normally on routes towards
the CBD) rather than to feed
into one another and provide cross-suburban linkages. Hence the prevalence
of tram routes that stop just
a short distance from railway stations, making interchange inconvenient.
Bus routes are similarly irrational
and due to their many deviations are often slow and provide poor
cross-suburban linkages.

Toronto's system is better planned to provide a grid of reasonably frequent
services across the city.  Because
bus services normally are direct along arterial roads, travel speed is
better than in Melbourne.  Hence the
comparatively high patronage even in parts of Toronto not on the rail
network compared to Melbourne.

All this and more is explained in Paul Mees book - "A very public solution".

Peter