The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership

Wow that's awesome! Calgary would be the 11th most used Rapid Transit system on the continent if it were on that list. Pretty amazing for a city that is around 1.2 million people smaller than the smallest city in the top 10 , and over 3 million smaller than the smallest American city in the top 10!


Btw, one Wikipedia editors opinion on what constitutes Rapid Transit is not going to change mine.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

People who just arrived in Calgary maybe ? not used to C-Train ?

I think the most recent one was someone from BC, but I think it’s just a strange year. No one has been talking about upward trends, at least not yet. It seems to be just an anomaly.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I would say the C-train is a rapid transit system using light rail technology. I think it is an excellent system mainly with a few big flaws - Downtown and crossings on 36 St NW, Bow Trail, 17 Ave SW and across Heritage are the main ones that come to mind.

I have never ridden the west line so cannot speak to that. But you're right the downtown portion and the NE line along 36th can be very frustrating, both for train riders and car drivers. The south and NW lines once outside of DT are very fast. It would have been nice to have the DT portion underground but though that was plannd it was deemed prohibitvely expensive. Don't know what could have been done with the NE line, maybe an elevated or depressed railway? That likely would have broke the bank as well.

[caltrane74]

I think I will be excited to check out the Calgary/Edmonton rapid transit lines..

[miketoronto]

I have been living in the US for work, and I just want to say that despite problems that need to be fixed. Canada does a pretty good job with public transit, taking into account our development patterns, etc.

We have a lot of work to do yet, but we truly are ahead of other non European countries like Australia (Australia is starting to do some things right in the transit world) and the USA in many cases.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

to be called rapid transit, it has to be grade separated. Like a highway.

I haven't seen that definition before. Exclusive right-of-way is always a requirement of rapid transit (along with frequency, capacity, etc), but I've most often seen full grade separation as being paired with a metro system. That is, a metro is subset of rapid transit. Meanwhile, I've usually seen light rail used to refer to the physical hardware as opposed to operating procedures. So for example, the SkyTrain is both light rail and a metro.

Is this an uncommon view?

[GreaterMontréal]

That's the definition used by wikipedia. Grade separated means, it will use the fastest way of going from point A to point B.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

That's the definition used by wikipedia. Grade separated means, it will use the fastest way of going from point A to point B.

Wikipedia's definition states that rapid transit is usually fully grade separated, but it doesn't go as far as to give that as a necessary condition (as it does for right-of-way). Further, it is not clear to me what you mean by 'fastest'. Certainly that's a word in need of a few footnotes. Grade separated modes are not necessarily the quickest route, nor the shortest distance, nor the shortest travel time.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by VIce

I haven't seen that definition before. Exclusive right-of-way is always a requirement of rapid transit (along with frequency, capacity, etc), but I've most often seen full grade separation as being paired with a metro system. That is, a metro is subset of rapid transit. Meanwhile, I've usually seen light rail used to refer to the physical hardware as opposed to operating procedures. So for example, the SkyTrain is both light rail and a metro.

Is this an uncommon view?

A metro system and rapid transit are the same thing. A metro is the term used for a rapid transit service.

The term comes from the APTA, North America's premier public transit industry group that's most famous for compiling and publishing the quarterly ridership reports for North American transit services.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I have been living in the US for work, and I just want to say that despite problems that need to be fixed. Canada does a pretty good job with public transit, taking into account our development patterns, etc.

We have a lot of work to do yet, but we truly are ahead of other non European countries like Australia (Australia is starting to do some things right in the transit world) and the USA in many cases.

Yes, but Melbourne does have the largest Tram fleet in the world and outstanding rail connections.

[kevinbottawa]

This pic of Ottawa's downtown LRT tunnel was posted in the Ottawa forum today. This is the eastern portal; it's at 100 meters. The western portal is at 4 meters and they'll be starting at the centre portal soon.

[eemy]

Honestly, I think the APTA glossary mentioned is far more influential than it ought to be considering how outdated it is (1994). The term 'rapid transit' is now far more broad in common parlance (see pretty much any other definition than APTA's) and the distinction of total grade separation used by APTA makes the term effectively meaningless and pointless in light of other synonymous and more descriptive terms like metro, subway or elevated railway.

This is the English language where we don't define terms by fiat. Systems such as Calgary's and Edmonton's are almost universally understood to be rapid transit systems; ergo they are rapid transit systems.

[miketoronto]

I can see Calgary's LRT being listed as rapid transit, and it does achieve high speeds per hour, including stops.
That being said, I still think grade separation is a key part of whether a system is true rapid transit or not.
Calgary's system aside from downtown is basically grade separated, or has full priority with crossing arms.
Once the trains leave downtown Calgary, they do not stop for anything but station stops.

Edmonton's do not stop anywhere but for station stops. Again because the LRT has full priority even at grade crossings.

This differs from say the planned LRT lines in Toronto, which will not provide rapid transit, because they have no full priority, and cannot operate at high speeds like the Calgary system does.

[Nouvellecosse]

Grade separation doesn't just mean full priority. Full priority is just an issue of right of way. Most commuter rail systems don't stop for anything other than station stops either, and they also achieve high speeds, even higher than most rapid transit or LRT systems. These two things alone do not make for rapid transit, but these combined with the other characteristics do.

Rapid transit systems are grade separated since having level crossing for pedestrians or road vehicles limits the potential frequency because there needs to always be enough time between trains for people and vehicles to cross the tracks and for the trains to not cause traffic backups. In a rapid transit system, trains often run too frequently - with as little as 90 seconds between trains in each direction - to allow an at-grade crossing to be safe or practical.

Not every rapid transit system runs at ultra frequently, but it has the capability, which is what sets it apart.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Honestly, I think the APTA glossary mentioned is far more influential than it ought to be considering how outdated it is (1994). The term 'rapid transit' is now far more broad in common parlance (see pretty much any other definition than APTA's) and the distinction of total grade separation used by APTA makes the term effectively meaningless and pointless in light of other synonymous and more descriptive terms like metro, subway or elevated railway.

This is the English language where we don't define terms by fiat. Systems such as Calgary's and Edmonton's are almost universally understood to be rapid transit systems; ergo they are rapid transit systems.

It's not at all uncommon for the general public to misuse many technical terms. Just like many medical terms are commonly misused but that doesn't actually alter their definition.

That being said, I've only occasionally heard of such systems being referred to as anything other than LRT so the claim of them being almost "universally understood" as being as being rapid transit is totally false (unless you're specifically referring to how it's used in Alberta).

[Blader]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's not at all uncommon for the general public to misuse many technical terms. Just like many medical terms are commonly misused but that doesn't actually alter their definition.

That being said, I've only occasionally heard of such systems being referred to as anything other than LRT so the claim of them being almost "universally understood" as being as being rapid transit is totally false (unless you're specifically referring to how it's used in Alberta).

Rapid transit is a generic term; subway, elevated, whatever, are subsets of rapid. If the speeds are similar what is the issue? Feet on on the ground and on the vehicle, what is the difference where speed is concerned? I truly don't get it.

[Nouvellecosse]

It's not a generic term, it's a specific technical term used in the industry planners and transit professionals. I suspect that the misconception that it's a generic term may be the cause of the confusion.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's not a generic term, it's a specific technical term used in the industry planners and transit professionals. I suspect that the misconception that it's a generic term may be the cause of the confusion.

Who are 'transit professionals'. You have already discounted Transport For London and some other large transport bodies as not knowing how to define their own systems. This really isn't a big deal, but the definition of transit systems is effectively defined by the operators and I'm not sure why you are so determined to pigeon hole the definitions.

[Nouvellecosse]

I just noticed wiki has a "Passenger rail terminology" page as a link from the rapid transit page. It provides really clear description of all the terms and links to further reference material.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I just noticed wiki has a "Passenger rail terminology" page as a link from the rapid transit page. It provides really clear description of all the terms and links to further reference material.

This really doesn't reinforce your point, it only goes to show how many different categories of rail there are, with each one only vaguely defined.