"The problem with buses," writes transportation planner Nithin Vejendla in Work in Progress, "is that they are slow." The same thing could also be said about other surface transit routes like Toronto's streetcars, including some of our new lines. Now, there are lots of ways to speed up surface routes. Dedicated lanes and signal priority are two obvious ones. But an even simpler one is to just get rid of some stops!
North American cities tend to be plagued by too many transit stops. I think we do it because more stops sounds better than fewer stops. It creates the illusion of servicing more people. But too many stops can make routes painfully slow, by increasing dwell times. According to Nithin, buses in the US spend about 20% of their time just stopping and then starting again. Obviously the more stops you have, the worse this downtime gets.
Here's the average spacing between bus stops for various US cities taken from the above article:
If I convert some of these numbers into the system of measurement used by the rest of the planet, you'll find the following average stop spacings:
172 m in Philadelphia
205 m in Chicago
210 m in San Francisco
240 m in New York
260 m in Miami
350 m in Seattle
425 m in Las Vegas
European cities tend to have wider stop spacing, somewhere closer to 300–450 m. And as a further point of comparison, AI tells me that the current average streetcar stop spacing in Toronto is about 250 m, but that the official target for both streetcars and local buses is between 300–400 m. This is better. 400 m is a 5-minute walk. And if you're on the transit corridor, it means you'll never have to walk more than 200 m, or 2-3 minutes, to the next stop.
Consolidating stops has been shown not to have a meaningful impact on coverage area, but the benefits are significant. To give just one example, Los Angeles saw its operating speeds increase by 29% and its ridership grow by 33% on the Wilshire/Whittier Metro Rapid corridor by doing exactly this. So, if you're looking for a way to speed up your surface routes, one starting point would be to just do less.
Detroit has started testing its new streetcars on Woodward Avenue. Quicken Loans bought the naming rights to the line, so it’s now officially called the QLINE. If you’re British, this name probably won’t instil feelings of rapidity.
Here’s a recent tweet from M1-Rail (click here if it doesn’t show up below):
The #QLINE is back on the road for testing today! Take a pic and tag @M1RAIL if you see the streetcar. #WeMoveDetroit pic.twitter.com/K42aHxebgG
— M-1 RAIL (@M1RAIL)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Note how the train is running curbside.
There’s lots of debate about the economic benefits of streetcar/LRT over other transit solutions such as BRT. But if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll probably know that I am a supporter of light rail.
In the case of Detroit, I also think there’s symbolic importance to bringing back light rail to the core of the city. The last Detroit streetcar was shut down in 1956.
It’s also worth mentioning how the streetcar line was funded. Below is a breakdown of funding sources dated 2014.
There may have been some changes since then, but it’s positive to see the public and private sectors come together, alongside a large infusion of philanthropic money (The Kresge Foundation).
Many of the companies on the above list sponsored individual stations. The cost to do so was $3 million, which is why you see that number show up a few times. Compuware and JP Morgan Chase shared a station at $1.5 million each.
Is this a transit funding model worth replicating?
Blitz by Tristan O'Tierney on 500px
Back in 2011, the The Pembina Institute published a report called, Building transit where we need it. And in it they quite clearly outlined the population densities that are needed to make various types of transit investment cost effective.
For subway they specify a minimum population density of 115 people per hectare and for light rail (LRT) they specify a minimum population density of 70 people per hectare.
And the reason for this is because there’s a strong correlation between population density (i.e. land use) and transit ridership. The two go hand in hand and should not be decoupled. If population densities are too low (as they are, for example, along the Sheppard subway line here in Toronto), people don’t take transit. They drive.
Here’s a chart from the report showing the current and projected population densities for Toronto’s existing and proposed routes (keep in mind this is from 2011).
So what does this chart tell us?
Subways don’t make a lot of sense in many parts of the city. LRT will do just fine.
The Sheppard subway line is an under-utilized asset. Even by 2031 we’ll barely be reaching the requisite population densities.
The Bloor-Danforth corridor could use more intensification.
The Yonge-University-Spadina line is going to need to relief.
Unfortunately, transit decisions are often made based on politics instead of data. And that results in subways in places that don’t make a lot of sense. That’s unfortunate because it means less riders, less revenue, and more subsidies.
The other challenge with running subways through low density neighborhoods is that it then creates tension when the city and developers go to intensify those neighborhoods through transit-oriented development. (See #DensityCreep.)
But if we’re going to be fiscally irresponsible about where we deploy our transit capital, the least we could do is upzone the surrounding areas and impose minimum population densities.
In fact, here’s what I think we should do: Land use should be bundled with the transit decision.
Instead of asking where the subway station should go, we should be asking where the subway station should go and all the density needed to bring the area up to a certain minimum population density. And if that second criteria for whatever reason can’t be met, then we don’t build the line.
I wonder if we framed the question in this way if it would change where subway lines get approved. What do you think?