The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 80

Metro-One · #**1581** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 6:59 AM**

So only Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver have true rapid transit systems in Canada, or Metro. The definition of a metro is essentially the same, has to be electric and grade separated, and can be either light or heavy.

Doady · #**1582** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 7:26 PM**

I would define rapid transit as having all of the following: all-door boarding, high frequency, fixed and limited stops, exclusive ROW, grade-separation.

Ottawa's Transitway is probably closest to true rapid transit outside of the Big Three, but missing all-door boarding and of course the grade-separation downtown. Also, it's not rail either, though I'm not sure if that's really important (especially considering the Montreal Metro's rubber-tired vehicles on guideways). So I'd define it semi-rapid transit, like C-Train. Based on what I've read, the new "light rail" system Ottawa is planning will be a true metro/subway/rapid transit system.

Ottawa-style BRTs are also being built/planned in Mississauga and along Highway 407 in York Region, but many probably would not consider that to be "outside of the Big Three." And like Ottawa there will be on-street sections and the services will probably not have any all-door boarding scheme either.

someone123 · #**1583** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 7:45 PM**

Reposting this from the Halifax rail thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

So this finally happened - low floor street car style trains allowed to run with traditional rail... FRA alternate compliance is a reality.

http://www.dcta.net/news-events/dctaalternativedesignapproval/menu-id-59.html

Similar systems would be pretty attractive in Canada as well. There's a lot of talk in Halifax of using CN ROWs for "commuter rail", but none of the existing freight lines are that great as passenger routes. If they could be augmented with some new segments along surface streets they'd be much more appealing, and a solution like that would be quite affordable. $1B for a single rapid transit line in a smaller city is a huge stretch, but the mixed LRT using some existing ROWs is realistic. There's also a lot of appeal in having a system that can be improved over time with small capital outlays -- start out with the old freight line, add an extension, improve some of the crossings, etc. I think it's much easier to sell a $30M improvement every few years than it is to push through a $300M transit plan all in one go.

Chadillaccc · #**1584** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes, Wikipedia says: "A rapid transit, underground, subway, elevated railway, metro or metropolitan railway system is an electric passenger railway in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency, and grade separation from other traffic. Rapid transit systems are typically located either in underground tunnels or on elevated rails above street level. Outside urban centers, rapid transit lines may run on grade separated ground level tracks."

So then Edmonton's would be considered rapid transit.

and Calgary's is close enough lol. This whole argument is just really picking at straws here.

Metro-One · #**1585** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 9:27 PM**

Does Edmonton's not have at grade / street grade sections out of the core though? To be a true metro then entire system can not interact with traffic.

Hence even heavy rail systems such as JR and Hankyu in Japan are not metros, but their subways and skytrains are.

bulliver · #**1586** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Does Edmonton's not have at grade / street grade sections out of the core though?

It does, yes, but they are all signalized crossings with crossing arms and the LRT has priority of course.

someone123 · #**1587** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

and Calgary's is close enough lol. This whole argument is just really picking at straws here.

The taxonomy of rapid transit is a really boring topic of conversation that has been rehashed every few months on SSP for the past 10 years or more.

What's far more interesting are new transit technologies available and plans for improving Canadian systems.

Metro-One · #**1588** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 9:37 PM**

that makes it better than the C-train in my books for sure, and to me that makes it true rapid transit, but it officially makes it not a metro though, for that is still considered non grade separated.

Doady · #**1589** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 10:00 PM**

If Edmonton LRT ever ran at 2 minute frequencies in each direction like Skytrain and TTC Subway, then at-grade crossings would probably not be practical, signalized or not. But if people want to believe that grade-separation makes no difference and call everything rapid transit, more power to them I guess. I can call my street a freeway too, why bother with definitions.

Innsertnamehere · #**1590** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 10:09 PM**

I'm wondering how Wikipedia will grade the eglinton LRT in that.. 11km of it will be grade seperated, with 8km not being seperated. Since part of the line isn't, will they count the 11km (10 underground) as rapid transit?

Metro-One · #**1591** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 10:15 PM**

Non metro, the entire line has to be grade separated, since many aspects of the grade separated portion, such as frequency, will be dictated by the non-grade separated portion.

Innsertnamehere · #**1592** Posted **Jul 13, 2012, 10:43 PM**

Most of the trains Run from Jane to laird (the grade seperated part) only, with only something like half of them running on the above ground portion.. But you are probably right. It will most likely be considered non-rapid transit.

bulliver · #**1593** Posted **Jul 14, 2012, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doady

If Edmonton LRT ever ran at 2 minute frequencies in each direction like Skytrain and TTC Subway, then at-grade crossings would probably not be practical, signalized or not. But if people want to believe that grade-separation makes no difference and call everything rapid transit, more power to them I guess. I can call my street a freeway too, why bother with definitions.

You're right, and in fact a lot of us here in Edmonton were quite upset that the city decided to have an at-grade crossing at University Ave, a very busy road intersection that already has congestion at peak times that will only get worse if and when ETS decides to shorten the LRT headways.

What you seem to be missing, however, is that I could give a shit whether the LRT is considered 'rapid transit' or not. Only a pedant would bicker over something so meaningless. Rather, I was just answering metro's question.

Here's what I do know: The LRT is transit, and because it never has to slow down and wait for traffic, it is rather more rapid than driving at peak periods.

caltrane74 · #**1594** Posted **Jul 14, 2012, 7:55 PM**

Only the downtown-midtown portion of the Eglinton Line should be Underground. Keele to Jane is suburban wasteland well served with above ground LRT. Same for Scarborough.

Metro-One · #**1595** Posted **Jul 14, 2012, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulliver

You're right, and in fact a lot of us here in Edmonton were quite upset that the city decided to have an at-grade crossing at University Ave, a very busy road intersection that already has congestion at peak times that will only get worse if and when ETS decides to shorten the LRT headways.

What you seem to be missing, however, is that I could give a shit whether the LRT is considered 'rapid transit' or not. Only a pedant would bicker over something so meaningless. Rather, I was just answering metro's question.

Here's what I do know: The LRT is transit, and because it never has to slow down and wait for traffic, it is rather more rapid than driving at peak periods.

Yeah, I would also personally consider Edmonton's LRT to be rapid transit, due to its underground portion downtown and that in the less dense areas it is akin to a heavy rail set up.

The Portland Max on the other hand, I would not consider to be rapid transit same with the Seattle LRT.

Rapid vs. non rapid seems a little murky to me, hence I like to use metro vs. non-metro, which has a very clear guideline, 100% grade separated.

The_Architect · #**1596** Posted **Jul 14, 2012, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Only the downtown-midtown portion of the Eglinton Line should be Underground. Keele to Jane is suburban wasteland well served with above ground LRT. Same for Scarborough.

Putting the entire thing underground would have been a bigger waste of money than the 2-stop Sheppard "extension" that Ford proposed. It simply does not need to be underground outside of the middle stretch.

I do wish it went all the way to the airport in the first phase, though.

Innsertnamehere · #**1597** Posted **Jul 14, 2012, 11:13 PM**

My hope is the part to the airport will be grade seperated. And although I agree that it shouldn't have been a subway past laird, it should have been elevated. (or at least grade seperated to don mills for a future connection with the don mills LRT or DRL, considering it will go underground at don mills anyway)

Chadillaccc · #**1598** Posted **Jul 14, 2012, 11:14 PM**

Isn't the Finch West phase 1 going right to the Airport?

caltrane74 · #**1599** Posted **Jul 15, 2012, 12:21 PM**

Ongoing construction of second platform at Union

Innsertnamehere · #**1600** Posted **Jul 15, 2012, 3:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Isn't the Finch West phase 1 going right to the Airport?

No, they haven't even done the EA on that yet, unlike the eglinton extension to the airport. Though that is on the map down the road, finch to the airport is pretty low priority. (phase 1 goes to Humber college)