The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You seem to be implying that how you use something is the only thing that matters and that what you're actually using is irrelevant.

A Chevy suburban (large SUV) and a Dodge Caravan (minivan) can carry the same number of people, and I'm sure there are many people who chose to use them for the same purpose. If you have a Caravan and your neighbour has a Suburban and you both use your vehicles to carry passengers on the highway and never go of road, then there is considerable over lap.

You could say the fact that the Suburban can go off road, is four wheel drive, and has a much higher towing capcity is totally irrelevant since your neighbour never use those features, and therefore your Caravan does everything that your neighbour actually uses his Suburban for, meaning your Caravan is in fact an SUV. You could even say that the name is more appropriate for your Caravan since it has sportier car-based handling than the clumsy truck-based Suburban. But most people will still call the Suburban an SUV and the Caravan a minivan. So if you tell people you have an SUV, even though your Caravan can do everything that most people use their SUVs for, you'll still be giving people the wrong impression,

I don't think that is a very good analogy.

As I understand it, jeremy_haak's point was that, if we are looking at characterizing a transit system as "rapid" or not "rapid", shouldn't we be looking at whether the transit system in question achieves "rapidity" (as measured by travel speed, frequency, and capacity?) rather than how it achieves that "rapidity"?

[Nouvellecosse]

The analogy was just fine actually. The problem is people seem to be missing an important central point.

Like I said many posts ago, the term "Rapid Transit" is not a description or an adjective placed on a transit system to describe how fast or frequent it is. It is a technical term used for a transit system with a specific set of characteristics.

The same thing with the term SUV. It is not an adjective that you can randomly apply to any vehicle that you feel offers sportiness and utility. It is a specific term for truck-based passenger vehicle that is enclosed and lacks a truck bed. You have the right to feel that the choice of names wasn't a good or appropriate one, but it is what it is.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The analogy was just fine actually. The problem is people seem to be missing an important central point.

Like I said many posts ago, the term "Rapid Transit" is not a description or an adjective placed on a transit system to describe how fast or frequent it is. It is a technical term used for a transit system with a specific set of characteristics.

The same thing with the term SUV. It is not an adjective that you can randomly apply to any vehicle that you feel offers sportiness and utility. It is a specific term for truck-based passenger vehicle that is enclosed and lacks a truck bed. You have the right to feel that the choice of names wasn't a good or appropriate one, but it is what it is.

Fair enough. I suppose that is what I'm doing, suggesting that the definition of the technical term seems rather unhelpful.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The analogy was just fine actually. The problem is people seem to be missing an important central point.

Like I said many posts ago, the term "Rapid Transit" is not a description or an adjective placed on a transit system to describe how fast or frequent it is. It is a technical term used for a transit system with a specific set of characteristics.

The same thing with the term SUV. It is not an adjective that you can randomly apply to any vehicle that you feel offers sportiness and utility. It is a specific term for truck-based passenger vehicle that is enclosed and lacks a truck bed. You have the right to feel that the choice of names wasn't a good or appropriate one, but it is what it is.

Can you provide a source for a technical definition?

It's interesting that you point to SUV as an analogy with the advent of cross-over SUVs.

[logan5]

Calgary's C Train has an average speed of 35km/h with 1.35 km station spacing. To me that's rapid transit. To have your cities system labeled "Rapid Transit" or "Metro" seems more to do with status than to actual functionality.

[Chadillaccc]

Grade separation in Calgary certainly is a hindrance, I don't think there should be an illusions about that. The downtown section should have been put completely underground, like Edmonton's. But due to the rapidity of the system city-wide I would still call it rapid transit. Perhaps the fact that by 2020 the city plans to put the route 201 (the South and Northwest Lines) underground through downtown would finally appease your judgment of what constitutes rapid transit? Due to the fact that once underground through downtown, the 201 will only have about 5 at grade crossings across the entire 40 km route.

[Nouvellecosse]

Some people seem to be taking it a bit far. I mean, I'm not sure why it would be such a hard blow for Calgary to not have a "rapid transit" system. For a city of it's size it's very impressive to even have a full, high ridership LRT system, considering much larger places including Dallas, Seattle, Houston, Denver and Phoenix only have LRT systems, some of which were only built in the last few years. There are only a couple of (much older/denser) metro areas in Europe that have rapid transit systems with a population as small as metro Calgary. Many places like Porto for instance have what they refer to as a "pre-metro" which is basically what we call LRT in NA.

But ok, there is a definition on APTA's glossary PDF for an industry source.

"Rail or motorbus transit service operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right of way"

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/Transit_Glossary_1994.pdf

And from Encyclopedia Britannica:

"system of railways, usually electric, that is used for local
transit in a metropolitan area. A rapid transit line may run underground (subway), above street level (elevated transit line), or at street level. Rapid transit is distinguished from other forms of mass transit by its operation on exclusive right-of-way, with no access for other vehicles or for pedestrians. See elevated transit line; mass transit; subway."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/491506/rapid-transit

But anyway, as interesting as cross over SUVs may be, I see no connection to the topic, as C-train definitely isn't a crossover. It's a full LRT system. In fact, it's one of the earliest examples of a true, North American LRT system. However, Vancouver Skytrain can be cited cited as a crossover between LRT and metro (sometimes dubbed "light metro") since it has all of the characteristics of a full metro system, but uses unusually small trains which is more similar to light rail.

SF's BART and Paris' RER on the other hand, are both crosses between rapid transit and commuter rail with BART being true rapid transit using full grade separation but lower branch frequencies, while RER has over 70km of metro-like tunnel operation, but has some level crossings, and often uses bi-level cars.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Some people seem to be taking it a bit far. I mean, I'm not sure why it would be such a hard blow for Calgary to not have a "rapid transit" system.

I don't think its a hard blow. I just think its a silly definition if, for example, Vancouver's Skytrain system included three at grade but controlled crossings, it would suddenly no longer be a rapid transit system. Maybe there is a good reason for this distinction, I just don't know what it is.

[Doug]

Due to Calgary's unique and highly centralized commuter patterns, the C Train's practical average speed is higher the 35 km/h as few patrons ride it all the way through downtown. At some point, grade separation will become necessary through downtown to ease the capacity crunch, but for 30+ years it hasn't hindered the "rapid" descriptor all that much. The ability to adapt to ridership is the killer feature of LRT technolgy. Unlike the SkyTrain, it need not be an expensive, fully grade separated system in all places. Full grade separation may make sense through corridors of contiguous high density, but there aren't many of those in North America.

[Metro-One]

Change of conversation, today was the photo op / installation of the first fare gate on Skytrain, this was done at Marine Station:

Here are my pics from the event, i arrived just in time:















Pics are my own:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30634635@N03/

Cheers!

[P. Alouishous]

Originally Posted by Doug

Unlike the SkyTrain, it need not be an expensive, fully grade separated system in all places. Full grade separation may make sense through corridors of contiguous high density, but there aren't many of those in North America.

Very true. But try convincing the people in Toronto who want to spend money putting a subway through suburban Northern Scarborough.

[agrant]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

I don't think its a hard blow. I just think its a silly definition if, for example, Vancouver's Skytrain system included three at grade but controlled crossings, it would suddenly no longer be a rapid transit system. Maybe there is a good reason for this distinction, I just don't know what it is.

The whole buisiness of naming conventions for transit, especially when it comes to rail transit, can be a wasteful endeavor. There's like 4 or 5 defined types of rail transit, but there's a hundred variations/combinations of those...

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Change of conversation, today was the photo op / installation of the first fare gate on Skytrain, this was done at Marine Station:

Here are my pics from the event, i arrived just in time:


Cheers!

Cool! If I recall correctly, Skytrain has been a proof-of-fare system until now, yes? Is the whole system changing to fare gates?

[Metro-One]

Thanks! That is correct about proof-of-fare, and yep they will be at all stations (including Sea Bus) except Metrotown and Main Street, where the entire stations need to be re-done.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You seem to be implying that how you use something is the only thing that matters and that what you're actually using is irrelevant.

A Chevy suburban (large SUV) and a Dodge Caravan (minivan) can carry the same number of people, and I'm sure there are many people who chose to use them for the same purpose. If you have a Caravan and your neighbour has a Suburban and you both use your vehicles to carry passengers on the highway and never go of road, then there is considerable over lap.

You could say the fact that the Suburban can go off road, is four wheel drive, and has a much higher towing capcity is totally irrelevant since your neighbour never use those features, and therefore your Caravan does everything that your neighbour actually uses his Suburban for, meaning your Caravan is in fact an SUV. You could even say that the name is more appropriate for your Caravan since it has sportier car-based handling than the clumsy truck-based Suburban. But most people will still call the Suburban an SUV and the Caravan a minivan. So if you tell people you have an SUV, even though your Caravan can do everything that most people use their SUVs for, you'll still be giving people the wrong impression,

That's actually a pretty good analogy.

Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal have true metro and rapid transit systems, all other systems in Canada just aren't as good.

You know it doesn't sound douchey at all when someone says "Bob, John and Terry are the only guys on the block with true SUV's".

Side note: No one goes off roading in a suburban....no one.

[artvandelay]

This idea that the entire system needs to be grade separated to be considered rapid transit is silly to me. The Chicago L has level crossings on its lines in suburban areas, and I don't think anyone would argue that it's not rapid transit.

While I wouldn't consider the downtown section of the CTrain rapid transit, the rest of the system has signal priority and moves about as fast as any true metro I've been on.


Speaking of the CTrain, here is an update on progress of the west line. Testing has been going on for a couple of weeks now. All photos courtesy of www.westlrt.ca

45th Street Station with a Test Train



45th Street Station Aerial



69th Street Station Looking West



Shaganappi Point Station Aerial



Sirocco Station Aerial



Sirocco Station Looking West



Sunalta Station Aerial



Sunalta Station



Westbrook Station Aerial



Westbrook Station Platform Level

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Thanks! That is correct about proof-of-fare, and yep they will be at all stations (including Sea Bus) except Metrotown and Main Street, where the entire stations need to be re-done.

I'm jealous. Proof-of-fare just feels so small town to me (I know its stupid but it does.) So it seems like the cost of installing the fare gates starts to make economic sense (in terms of preventing fare evasion/saving money on fare patrolling) once a system hits ~400,000 daily riders. I wonder if, after the extension to 4 car trains is complete, the C-Train might be getting close to that magic number? I hope so.

[Ayreonaut]

I would love to see gates on the C-Train, but I doubt it'll happen for quite some time.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

I would love to see gates on the C-Train, but I doubt it'll happen for quite some time.

Not sure how easy it is for C-Train as some of the stations are very open (ie. the downtown stations). It would be even harder if they choose low-floor for the new line as fare evader can just walk around the gate via the tracks...

[renthefinn]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

I'm jealous. Proof-of-fare just feels so small town to me (I know its stupid but it does.) So it seems like the cost of installing the fare gates starts to make economic sense (in terms of preventing fare evasion/saving money on fare patrolling) once a system hits ~400,000 daily riders. I wonder if, after the extension to 4 car trains is complete, the C-Train might be getting close to that magic number? I hope so.

The fairgate system being installed in Vancouver will cost more to implement and run than it will save by reducing fair evasion. It seems silly to me that they would implement it, but it is what it is.