The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GreaterMontréal]

You will go underground one day, trust me. Calgary will have underground downtown LRT. That's the point.

[GernB]

Too bad Calgary didn't go with the DT tunnel originally but I suppose that would have delayed other legs of the system. I seem to remember a proposal to either elevate or build the 36 street NE portion in a trench which was dropped due to cost and an idea to have the NW line cross directly under the UC campus also but the UC didn't want it there.

[VIce]

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.

I am not particularly interested in boosterism ... I was just genuinely interested in how these things are defined.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by GernB

Too bad Calgary didn't go with the DT tunnel originally but I suppose that would have delayed other legs of the system. I seem to remember a proposal to either elevate or build the 36 street NE portion in a trench which was dropped due to cost and an idea to have the NW line cross directly under the UC campus also but the UC didn't want it there.

I also regret that the city didn't go the underground route to begin with, but the money we saved from that is part of the reason we have been able to build the most extensive ROW-reserved LRT system on the continent, and the most 4th most extensive rapid transit system in the country(most extensive per capita). Edmonton spent a lot on their downtown and Strathcona subway, and partly as a result, they are only now beginning to add new lines, the first of which opens in just a few months!

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by GernB

Too bad Calgary didn't go with the DT tunnel originally but I suppose that would have delayed other legs of the system. I seem to remember a proposal to either elevate or build the 36 street NE portion in a trench which was dropped due to cost and an idea to have the NW line cross directly under the UC campus also but the UC didn't want it there.

Not going underground from the start not only in Calgary, but also in Ottawa, and other cities, was a huge mistake.

We can say a downtown tunnel would have delayed further extensions. But that is not true. What delayed or delays further extensions is a political climate that does not believe in transit.

If transit is a priority, then extensions will be build regardless.

Not building downtown tunnels from the start, just makes the task even more expensive later on, and has caused nothing but capacity and other problems on many systems.

One must also ask how many more trains or buses (in the case of Ottawa) are required to operate the same frequency of service due to slow moving downtown sections.

We really cheaper out in the late 70's and into the 80's, and now into the new century.

Calgary is not too bad, but look at the mess in Portland, where the at-grade downtown routing creates huge travel time issues, where transit has become almost unviable for crosstown travel, as the downtown stretch wastes so much time running on the street.

[feepa]

'what is strathcona subway'

A big reason why Calgary has a larger LRT system then Edmonton has little to do with the tunnel or the financing of the tunnel, and more to do with politics/recession/cutbacks. We also never got special funding grants for our LRT, like Calgary did for '88

Edmonton built LRT to University station in 92, and then stopped any sort of LRT construction, regardless of cost until 2004. Calgary never stopped. The tunnel was basically complete at this point, save for a small portal required to get to Health Sciences station (which opened in 2008)

[niwell]

Calgary's at-grade downtown LRT is mitigated by the fact the vast majority of uses are taking it from the suburbs to downtown. Which is the same reason the system is so successful in the first place - the percentage of downtown workers compared to the overall workforce. So in that light it makes some sense.

But I did spend two summers commuting from the suburban NW (Dalhousie) to the NE (Malborough). And yeah, that sucked. It felt like half the trip was spent crawling through the downtown core.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by feepa

'what is strathcona subway'

The University is in Strathcona, the tunnel goes goes to the University after the bridge.

[MolsonExport]

Best mass transit (subway) that I've experienced?

In terms of scope: Shanghai. Unbelievable. Largest in the world and still growing.

Tokyo is utterly amazing but hopelessly crowded at rush hour. those images of professional pushers...shoving you into the subway cars....all true at Shinjuku/Shibuya.

In terms of comfort/comprehensiveness relative to population: Vienna. Simply awesome.

Worst subway system: Boston or Toronto. The former has ancient crappy lines (and a few good ones), the latter is just shite and woefully inadequate. What is the deal with the shitpicker tokens...in this day and age.

Best Canadian subway system: Montreal Metro. Of course. No debate.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

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

The maglev hits 431km/hour. I took it twice in 2012.

[Innsertnamehere]

Shh Toronto is improving.. now if only we could get a mayor who actually wants to fund transit beyond token extensions while cutting service levels. Token phase out begins this year.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by logan5

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.

Then only thing I hate about the ignore list is that it doesn't work in quotes.

That being said I find it rather ridiculous that chad would accuse anyone else of pedantism when his whole spiel is that while rapid means fast, one cannot say fast transit, express rail or transit, pre-metro, or any other term. They have to use that one specific term and will argue until blue in the face if anyone disagrees. Doesn't get any more pedantic than that.

And that type of hypocrisy (levelling accusations @ others while doing it twice as hard himself) is the very reason I eventually realised the ignore list is the only solution.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

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.

It's defined in the same section as heavy rail as it and subway, metro, etc. are all types of the same thing and therefore do not each need their own separate entry.

"Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling, and high platform loading."

As far as dictionaries, when i search the term on dictionary.com, it lists both a very brief description "a system of public transportation in a metropolitan area, usually a subway or elevated train system." as well as citing encyclopaedia Britannica for the more detailed technical description "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."

Note that Britannica also stresses the major defining feature as being the lack of access for vehicles or pedestrians.

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

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 Toronto subway is capable of ultra high frequency service.

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

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.

Why is it that it matters that the better system is called something different? Is the reason people are so insistent or re-writing the terminology is that they consider rapid transit to be superior and that using another term is pejorative? If so that's a problem. A city needs whatever type of system that best suits its needs and budget. Building a rapid transit system where another type of service like LRT, pre-metro, commuter rail, etc. is more appropriate is not a positive thing. The best kind of system is one that best suits it's city's needs.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Shh Toronto is improving.. now if only we could get a mayor who actually wants to fund transit beyond token extensions while cutting service levels. Token phase out begins this year.

I don't get the obsession with tokens, tickets and paper transfers still being used in Toronto. It such a non issue compared to things like access to rapid transit. On top of that, I've been on several European networks that still used them and had no intention of replacing them. Coverage of the subway is awful but access is improved via a sufficient bus system. It's hardly inadequate either to anyone who has experienced rush hour in numerous cities. Even Calgary has a worst transit rush hour.

Yeah, we get it. Montreal had the smart card first. It also beat us to mothballing their tram network. Toronto wasc also the last city to be bombarded with Tim Hortons. Whoop-tee-do. The smart card has proven itself so Metrolinx is implementing it.

[Chadillaccc]

Hopefully the introduction of 4-car trains later this year will help alleviate the rush hour situation, but yeah, currently it is the worst rush hour crush I've experienced of all the cities I've lived. However, the flip side is that it's great that so many thousands of people are using the system, the next apta report will likely show a growth to around 310 000 per weekday hopefully!

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't get the obsession with tokens, tickets and paper transfers still being used in Toronto. It such a non issue compared to things like access to rapid transit. On top of that, I've been on several European networks that still used them and had no intention of replacing them.

Smartcards are great and all. But really the Toronto fare system while low tech, works pretty well.
Believe it or not, it is actually faster to board passengers on a Toronto bus, where people just show their monthly pass as they get on. Compared to the high tech systems, where riders have to swipe or tap a card for everything. Montreal even found those split second taps are slowing down bus boardings, and in turn slowing down people's commutes.

So yes smartcards have a place. But high tech is not always the number one option.

[Innsertnamehere]

smart cards allow multi door boarding which typically offsets time loss from longer overall boarding per passenger.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by feepa

'what is strathcona subway'

A big reason why Calgary has a larger LRT system then Edmonton has little to do with the tunnel or the financing of the tunnel, and more to do with politics/recession/cutbacks. We also never got special funding grants for our LRT, like Calgary did for '88

Edmonton built LRT to University station in 92, and then stopped any sort of LRT construction, regardless of cost until 2004. Calgary never stopped. The tunnel was basically complete at this point, save for a small portal required to get to Health Sciences station (which opened in 2008)

Nope, Calgary did stop LRT expansion in the 90s. From the opening of the NW extension to Brentwood in 1990 to the start of the work on the South extension to Fish Creek-Lacombe in 1999, no other work was done. Provincial Grants dried up, the City's priority was debt reduction and the city wasn't growing enough to justify the LRT work. That changed in 1998. But, its great to see the work being done in both city's LRT networks since that time. I'm overdue in taking a trip up there to see for myself.

[saffronleaf]

The insecurity of some people in this thread is mindboggling. Who cares if your transit system is classified as an LRT or a rapid transit system?

The whole point is to have a transit system that is effective given the circumstances of the city in which it operates.

At the end of the day, I think for most larger cities, multiple modes of transportation are important.

Canadian cities have a very long way to go to excel at public transportation.

[eemy]

I encourage you to see how 'rapid transit' is used in journal articles and you will see that scholars are quite comfortable using it with a range of technologies from enhanced bus services to full subway systems.

There is definitely a use in distinguishing technologies used (and there are plenty of more precise terms available to do so), but there is also an important need to be able to refer to a second tier of transit beyond normal street-side service. Rapid transit is one term that satisfies this need (and I would argue is used that way by most researchers). It has nothing to do with boosterism, it has to do with the need to have a consistent way to refer to a second tier of transit service.

Just to be clear as well, the C-Train most definitely is not a premetro system. A premetro is what a bunch of European cities referred to the upgraded central part of their existing surface tram networks. The original proposal for a Queen subway in Toronto definitely would have been the same idea though.

Anyway, I don't really like arguing on internet forums; I feel I've made my case well, and will leave it at that. And let this forum return to arguing about other things.