The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 175

Nouvellecosse · #**3481** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 6:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.

That's not a definition, it's a brand name. Branding is meant to be popular and memorable and have a nice ring with the public, and has little to do with providing any actual definitions.

As far as why I'm so determined to "pigeon hole definitions" I suppose I could just as easily ask why others are so determined to dilute the definitions of technical terms. Especially when they don't consider it a "big deal".

From my perspective, one of the benefits of English is that there's such a wide selection of words available - one of the largest vocabularies of any language. So it seems silly when you have specific words for each precise definition, why people would insist of having every word used for every similar thing so that you have dozens of vague terms that each require clarification to determine what the person means when the word could have just spoken for itself.

Nouvellecosse · #**3482** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 6:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.

I don't find most of the definition particularly vague.

milomilo · #**3483** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 7:03 AM**

So what are your definitions of rail transit?

Because at one end we have streetcars, and at the other we have the RER and Crossrail, with a massive spectrum of Metrolinks, C-Trains, Tubes, Skytrains and Subways in between each with unique characteristics. Do you really think there is a binary definition of LRT/rapid transit for all of them?

GlassCity · #**3484** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 7:50 AM**

Why is it important what people classify your mass transit form. How insecure do you have to be

Nouvellecosse · #**3485** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 7:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

So what are your definitions of rail transit?

Because at one end we have streetcars, and at the other we have the RER and Crossrail, with a massive spectrum of Metrolinks, C-Trains, Tubes, Skytrains and Subways in between each with unique characteristics. Do you really think there is a binary definition of LRT/rapid transit for all of them?

I definitely agree that the types of transit are a spectrum and that in some systems there is overlap, but feel the vast majority fit comfortably within a category. There are about 175 existing metro systems and over 30 under construction, and I would be surprised if there is even a quarter of that number that cannot fit reasonably within a definition.

When I'm looking at an urban/suburban passenger rail system I consider anything that has all the traits of rapid transit to be a rapid transit or metro system, with some systems of course being more suburban/express oriented (like Washington metro) while others are more urban focused (Montreal metro).

Even if it's fully grade separated, if frequency is below 6 trains per hour per line for much of the day, I would classify it as commuter rail or light rail, depending on the rolling stock and alignment.

But these "middle grounds" are fairly rare since they don't usually make for a practical system. If you go through all the expense of fully grade separating the system, it doesn't make sense to not fully utilize the route by having high service frequency. And if you don't fully grade separate, then you can't have extremely high frequency due to safety and congestion concerns.

Systems like RER and Sydney Trains have a metro-like appearance in the city centre due to their high frequency from multiple lines being combined into a couple main corridors. But for most of their routes, they don't look anything like this and the outer branches cannot have metro-frequency due to the capacity of the inner city routes, and lack of full grade separation.

milomilo · #**3486** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 7:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Why is it important what people classify your mass transit form. How insecure do you have to be

It isn't important.

caltrane74 · #**3487** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 2:34 PM**

Construction Update on the Union Station Renovation by Empty_Quarter at UT

eemy · #**3488** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

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.

And if you actually look at their source (the 2013 APTA Fact Book Glossary), rapid transit isn't defined at all. If this was really such a well-established industry standard technical definition, I would think that a) you should be able to corroborate your usage beyond a single obscure and outdated glossary and b) that at least one dictionary would at least acknowledge its technical usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

So the subway in Toronto isn't a rapid transit system since it does not have the capability for those ultra-high frequencies? While it would be impractical to have level crossings with those sorts of frequencies, technologically there is no reason it couldn't be done. The fact of the matter is that the barrier to those ultra-high frequencies is the signalling system and the operators.

The point is, regardless of what some glossary somewhere once said, the term 'rapid transit' is useful (and I believe used) in discussion as a reflection of passenger service. By focusing on the technology used, you end up with a situation where you may have a system that is clearly superior for passengers in all measures (C-Train vs. MARTA for example), but the better system is missing an essential widget that makes it rapid transit and so instead is just a trolley or tram. That is absurd.

Finally, if you look at journal articles, you will see that, at least in the scholarly community, rapid transit is a very broad term that encompasses a whole range of technologies. If it's a precisely used technical term, the people researching transit certainly haven't gotten the message.

Daveography · #**3489** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Why is it important what people classify your mass transit form. How insecure do you have to be

It amuses me how this conversation comes up time and time again in the Canada section. Usually happens at least once a year, sometimes twice.

J.OT13 · #**3490** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 4:37 PM**

Every few months, the same debate. Rapid Transit is a rail based, 100% grade separated urban transit system. It has nothing to do with speed (partly determined by distance between stations). As for frequency, it's determined by automation/technology (heavy rail usually have lower frequencies than lrt). Up to 90 seconds, but does not exclude systems running at 120seconds.

I know that it's a hot button issue for Albertan's, but the C-Train and ETS are not rapid transit, but pre-metros. Ottawa's Confederation Line is rapid transit, but if they ever add even one single level crossing, it will no longer be rapid transit.

Chadillaccc · #**3491** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 4:47 PM**

Quote:

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.

At least someone gets it!

Edit: Just timed myself (just by clock, couldn't find stop-watch on my phone). It took me exactly 20 minutes from stepping through the train doors at Dalhousie Station, to stepping out of the train doors at Centre Street Station. That's about 12 KM in 20 min... one might call that type of transportation "rapid"

Nouvellecosse · #**3492** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

It amuses me how this conversation comes up time and time again in the Canada section. Usually happens at least once a year, sometimes twice.

I know! It's funny how the first big rapid transit debate happened so early in the new year. But at least this one has a chance of remaining civil now that chad and I have each other on ignore list.

Chadillaccc · #**3493** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 7:52 PM**

I don't have you on ignore list. Thankfully you made the right choice though, since I'll never stop refuting your pedantic nonsense! The debate is over anyways. Rapid = fast... LRT is fast. Rapid Transit. I don't care about definitions made by outdated policies that haven't held weight for a decade. I know what words mean, so I'll use them.

GreaterMontréal · #**3494** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 8:03 PM**

rapid transit doesn't = fast. Commuter rail transit is fast.. real trains going 70kmh. nowhere it's considered rapid transit. The Montreal metro can go maximum speed 70kmh in 16 to 26 seconds depending on grade and load.

Chadillaccc · #**3495** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 8:46 PM**

I don't understand the point you're trying to make in that post.

GreaterMontréal · #**3496** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 9:08 PM**

You say rapid = fast transit. ''The debate is over anyways. Rapid = fast''

so, if you go fast, you are automatically rapid transit ?

rapid = high capacity and frequency . the maglev going 400kmh is not rapid transit.

the maglev 400kmh China 370 million passengers annually.
montreal metro 70kmh 176,244,100 annually in 2012.

what makes rapid transit good is the high capacity-frequency short distances

Chadillaccc · #**3497** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 9:16 PM**

No, I said, "rapid = fast"... you even quoted it. I was saying the word "rapid" also means "fast" and several other words, all describing the action of moving quickly. I clearly said I understand the definition of words, so I'll use them correctly. Which I have been doing for many years.

And again, we're back to this. Do you not understand the fact that LRTs move people "short distances with high capacity and frequency"? Since that has been shown several times over the last 24 hours here, I can't see how you would not understand that yet. Some LRTs have high capacity, frequencies, and/or average speeds than some metros, again.

GreaterMontréal · #**3498** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 9:36 PM**

Yeah, but when we hear about cars crashing into C-Trains, how can it be called rapid transit.

Chadillaccc · #**3499** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 9:44 PM**

Lol, that is a ridiculous notion. What does a couple of trains, out of thousands per week/month, hitting a few cars have to do with the average speed, capacity, and frequency of the system? That comment is purely just to try to put the system down, and because of it, my brain just melted. DONE!

logan5 · #**3500** Posted **Jan 10, 2014, 10:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I know! It's funny how the first big rapid transit debate happened so early in the new year. But at least this one has a chance of remaining civil now that chad and I have each other on ignore list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I don't have you on ignore list. Thankfully you made the right choice though, since I'll never stop refuting your pedantic nonsense! The debate is over anyways. Rapid = fast... LRT is fast. Rapid Transit. I don't care about definitions made by outdated policies that haven't held weight for a decade. I know what words mean, so I'll use them.

This is kinda funny... Chadillaccc responding to you even though he's on your ignore list.

I guess it's a status symbol thing. LRT is like having a Honda while Metro is more Lexus.