A fairly significant chunk of the book “A Very Public Solution“, by Paul Mees, that I am slowly making my way through, is dedicated to comparing Melbourne with Toronto – and in particular the success (or otherwise) of their public transport systems. Now for a start, both systems are far better than Auckland – both in terms of how extensive they are (which I guess is obvious considering both cities are much bigger than Auckland), but also in terms of the level of use the systems have. Here’s a quick look at the extent of the two rail systems, Melbourne on the left and Toronto on the right: Sorry about the relatively poor quality, I scanned these pages from the book. What’s clear is the Melbourne’s rail system is extremely more extensive than Toronto’s. Both systems also have tram systems (once again Melbourne’s is bigger than Toronto’s). All of Melbourne’s lines are reasonably well used too – with frequencies of between a train every 5-10 minutes at peak times on many of the lines, and trains at 30-40 minute frequencies on Sundays or late in the evening.
The difference between the “size” of the systems is also evident in the diagram below, which shows not only the extent of the lines in the rail and tram systems, but also the number of vehicles on each comparative system. Overall, Melbourne has about 1500 trams & trains, while Toronto has just over 900 vehicles. Overall, it’s clear that Melbourne’s public transport system (at least its rail and tram components) is much more extensive than Toronto’s. Most of Melbourne’s system is a ‘legacy’ of the 19th century, while Toronto’s rail (subway) system was constructed from the 1950s onwards. However, Melbourne’s system still serves the city very effectively, travelling to most corners of the city as can be seen in the top diagram.
So, how does the patronage of the two systems compare? As we can see, in the 1950s Melbourne’s public transport usage was quite spectacular – at over a trip per person per day. However, in subsequent years (things have improved since 1990, with per capita trips at 125 per annum in 2008) patronage tailed off – both in absolute levels (until 1980) and on a per-capita basis (also until 1980). This is not really particularly surprising, as car ownership spread people had more choice in making their trips – so weren’t so ‘captive’ to public transport anymore. But what is interesting is to compare Melbourne’s patronage trends with Toronto’s – which has had almost continuous growth in patronage since the 1950s, and has just about maintained its per capita ridership.
I think a good question at this point is “what the heck’s going on here?” Melbourne, a city with a more extensive rail system, a more extensive tram system, more trains and more trams, is getting absolutely hammered by Toronto. Mees spends quite a few pages of his book explaining how it’s not to do with land-use patterns – as generally Toronto’s urban form is not particularly more public-transport-friendly than Melbourne’s (although compared to Auckland it is much much better, with high-density developments along the subway lines). So if the difference isn’t that Toronto’s system is more extensive, if it isn’t that land-use patterns are more helpful – why on earth are people two and a half times more likely to use public transport in Toronto than Melbourne? The answer, interestingly, can be found in how people get to the train stations – as shown in the table below:
As you can see, in Melbourne most people who use the rail system walk or cycle to the station. This is because Melbourne has generally struggled to provide an integrated ticketing system and route integration as much as Auckland has. In contrast, three out of four people catching a train in Toronto have got to the station on a feeder bus or tram. The limited extent of Toronto’s system doesn’t work against them, because of the ease of transfering, and actually means that the trains and trams that are provided are used to a far greater extent than in Melbourne. Therefore, it is a highly efficient system.
So what can we learn about this for Auckland? I think probably the biggest lesson is co-ordination is critical. In the end, it isn’t necessarily massive investment in infrastructure that will create the best outcomes, but being smart about creating a system that works. It’s about integrated ticketing, about route co-ordination, about feeder buses, about highly frequent services (trains on all Toronto’s subway lines run at no worse than 8 minute frequencies from 5am-1am) and about making it easy (and worthwhile) for people to transfer between services.
Hopefully ARTA officials might stop off in Toronto on their current overseas sojourn.
This is a great lesson, it means potentially if we do electrification and integrated ticketing right we can re-organise the buses into feeders and get outstanding results…
Take a 0 off the budget……….
I think one thing that Mees does to make the difference between Toronto and Melbourne so huge s is count all “unlinked trips” rather than linked trips. As Toronto’s system is based much more around transfers than Melbourne’s system, unlinked trips will always be more – because generally people on Toronto’s system will take two trips (bus, then train) whereas in Melbourne it might be more likely those trips would just be counted as one.
However, even taking that into account there’s still quite a difference between the two cities. Especially considering Toronto’s smaller infrastructure.
In addition to the issue of linked trips there are two more factors between the two cities to consider.
Toronto actually has a far more extensive rail network than the above diagram would indicate with an extensive commuter rail network operated by GO Transit http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/schedule/sysmap.aspx. No idea how many it carries but judging by the size of its double decker loco hauled trains it must be hauling some pretty substantial numbers in the peak. The GO trains are integrated with a network of feeder buses increasing their catchment well beyond the rail lines.
When Toronto built its subway lines they were built by the city to replace the busiest and most congested tram lines hence why the network looks very compact in the Mees diagrams.
Melbourne’s extensive tram and train infrastructure tends to mask the truly dire state of the bus services that traditionally served much of the city beyond the tram and bus catchments. There have been significant improvements in recent years but in the past bus services tended to be very low frequency and indirect and really not an alternative to driving. Toronto on the other hand has traditionally had much higher clock face suburban bus frequencies on direct routes that connect with the subway at high quality interchanges.
So Melbourne could be a case of an over investment in rail (light and heavy) at the cost starving much of the city of a decent bus network.
Toronto on the other hand has possibly invested less into rail but invested in a targeted way that makes best use of ach mode. Compact high frequency metro and tram at the core, low frequency high speed commuter rail to the periphery and good bus network in the middle.
I don’t think it is fair to say Melbourne has “generally struggled to provide an integrated ticketing system “. Melbourne has had integrated fares with a single ticketing product for almost 20 years, initially as a paper scratch card then as magnetic swipe Metcard. It is struggling to introduce the radio frequency Myki card sure, but that doesn’t actually involve any new integration, fares or functionality as it will use the same fare products as previously.
What this means perhaps is that Auckland shouldn’t expect more than a modest patronage improvement even with a fully integrated fare system, unless there is an integrated timetable and network to go with it!
This is similar to something that Mees likes to stress in regard to density. Increasing urban density may theoretically make it public transport more efficient, but if there aren’t any public transport services to use it will not make a lick of difference (furthermore he does stress that high density is not a precondition to efficient PT either).
Likewise, you can make transfers and connections as easy as pie with say a single time based fare and no transfer penalties, but if there aren’t actually any transfers to be had because services do not connect then no one is going to do it!
There is no reason for ARTA officials to be travelling overseas at all.
If bloggers like Josh and Jon and so on can get all the information they do on the interweb, surely ARTA can do the same and save the expense of a junket.
Better – ARTA should sack all their staff and employ us!
I’ll volunteer for $60k!
I think the point is that Toronto shows how important co-ordination and high frequencies are.
Chris, yeah I wouldn’t mind working for ARTA one day.
I’m not sure the pictures give the full story. Melbourne built a state of the art rail system in the 1880s based on the huge wealth of the gold rushes. By WW2, Melbourne had one probably the worlds best resourced public transport system (with an extensive tramways system as well).
What followed since have been years of neglect and under-investment in the rail and tramways system. No new rolling stock was purchased for forty years and travel times plummeted. When the underground city loop was constructed in the 1980s- no money was left over for the rest of the system On top of all that pubic transport was sold off by the Neo-liberal Kennett government. The private operators had no interest in upgrading rail and tram infrastructure.
So while Toronto has continued to invest in new infarstructure Melbourne’s rail system has continued to crumble.
Go to http://www.gotransit.com an have a look at the alterations to Union Station and others. Some rather impressive photos
I grew up in Toronto – came to NZ in 1972. I remember catching the bus and transferring to the subway to go into the city, the subway station was also a bus terminus. This was in the late 60’s early 70’s. Fantastic system even then. Now I’m an ex Aucklander. I think growing up using a decent public transport system means that for me it’s an important consideration when choosing a city to live in. I’m off to Perth!
The books maps of Toronto (and probably the figures too) are inacuarate. They only count the metro, and not the Go Transit comuter rail (admittedly more of a regional rail network than a suburban one). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Commuter_Rail.
One thing that Melbourne really lacks is a ring-route that connects these lines without travel to the centre. As a result, it’s good if you work on the outskirts and need to travel near the centre or something along the lines, difficult to do anything else. Of course, it’s the Kath and Kim’s that live at the end of the Nepean Highway and other such monstrosities – Melbourne is one of the largest cities in the world, and developers are still fighting to expand it in every direction.
Auckland’s needed Eastern line could do that job, as could Airport, and a Western-Northern rail or dedicated light-rail line. This would help connect the city. Otherwise, you get linear transit corridors and the tendency is to sprawl further out along them.
Nicholas, yes he does leave out the “Go Transit” system. However, he considers that to be “commuter transit” rather than “urban transit”. He also leaves out Geelong to Melbourne services that are also more along the lines of “commuter transit”.
I think the main difference between Toronto and Melbourne is the incredibly sorry state of Melbourne’s bus network. While trains & trams are undoubtedly more glamorous than buses, I really do think that in a relatively dispersed city – such as Toronto, Melbourne and Auckland, you really really need an excellent bus system to back up and support the core rail network. Hopefully over time Auckland will shift towards having many more feeder buses into train stations, as will Melbourne.
Joshua,
Your description of Melbourne as a relatively dispersed city might be a bit generous. Its huge 100km x 80km if you don’t count Geelong. Herein lies its major planning problem
Victorians hate the train system with a vengeance. I’m in Melbourne at the moment and the trains get a slating almost every day in the media. They’re late, slow, crowded, and completely unloved.
Aere you sure you aren’t in Auckland Obi..? 😉
I disagree Obi, I’ve lived in Melbourne for two years and I don’t know anyone that hates the train system with a vengance, certainly not anyone that uses it. Among my friends and family (admittedly mostly not Victorian natives) the train system is well liked as a rule.
I’d say Victorians hate the train system management (formerly Connex) and the Transport Minister rather than the trains themselves, due to them being late/cancelled and overcrowded. Thats what gets the slating in the media, the lack of planning for growth that has been occuring for some time, and the lack of procedures and customer support to manage interuptions. I think that your average Melbourne commuter realises that the train system has the potential to be very good but currently doesn’t cut it due to delays and cancellations, hence a lot of frustration.
Victorians are certainly very fond and nostalgic of their trams, and to a lesser extent the trains. But if you ask people who take public transport they actually prefer the speed and space of the train system over the trams the get caught up in traffic.
Really if Victorians hate their train system with a vengance then why are they using it in record numbers? They like the trains but hate the (largely avoidable in my opinion) delays and cancellations.
I’m originally from Melbourne. The obvious problem is that Melbourne’s public transport capacity has not increased vastly since the 1950s (although obviously the population has).
Melburnians love public transport and most would never consider driving into the city, but the crowded trains and unreliable management are discouraging.
It’s a different attitude to public transport than in Auckland. Melburnians will use it, even if it means inconvenience such as crowding, having to walk to the station, etc. Aucklanders prefer to just complain and hope that someday the train line will come right up to their door. Things will only change if the patronage increases, as otherwise there is no motivation for the government to spend money on it.
Your are comparing apples with oranges. Toronto’s go transit that hauls in commuters from the suburbs is not even shown in you analysis. What Toronto does have, that Melbourne doesn’t, is an electrified metro transit with high frequency such that you do not have to check for times. There is always one arriving within 5 minutes. The rail network for Toronto that you show on your article is that of the high frequency metro, and you have not even included the commuter rail.
As many other people mentioned, the map you showed for Toronto is not the full map. It only contains the Subway. There are more train lines called GO trains which cover a vast area of ontario. Melbourne does not have a system like Toronto Subway and its rail system is more similar to GO trains
As a Melburnian, I had NO idea we were that behind and that that has such an impact… Hopefully the credit card payment system will be operational in 2025