The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 377

Nouvellecosse · #**7521** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:01 AM**

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

SkahHigh · #**7522** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

And a list of metro/RT systems in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

Canada has 3.

swimmer_spe · #**7523** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

And a list of metro/RT systems in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

Canada has 3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit_in_Canada

Canada has 9.

RT stands for?

SkahHigh · #**7524** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit_in_Canada

Canada has 9.

RT stands for?

I just said BRT does not count as RT but call it RT if you want

swimmer_spe · #**7525** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I just said BRT does not count as RT but call it RT if you want

So, what is BRT then?

milomilo · #**7526** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, if there is a crossing, that makes it not RT?

This is a BS, arbitrary, pointless discussion that comes up frequently and there are no firm definitions of RT or LRT or whatever. Basically what the owner names it is what it is.

That said, the C Train does yield to road traffic at times so your categorization is inaccurate by your standards - the LRT is often held up coming into downtown and always on 7th Ave. I'm not 100% certain how its crossings of busy roads like Heritage are handled either.

swimmer_spe · #**7527** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 6:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is a BS, arbitrary, pointless discussion that comes up frequently and there are no firm definitions of RT or LRT or whatever. Basically what the owner names it is what it is.

That said, the C Train does yield to road traffic at times so your categorization is inaccurate by your standards - the LRT is often held up coming into downtown and always on 7th Ave. I'm not 100% certain how its crossings of busy roads like Heritage are handled either.

So, what should we call transit that has it's own ROW, but has crossings

Nouvellecosse · #**7528** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 6:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, what should we call transit that has it's own ROW, but has crossings

There are many types of transit that may have this characteristic including LRT, streetcars, and commuter rail. They already have names so I'm not sure why we'd need to find something to call them.

ssiguy · #**7529** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 6:49 AM**

Rapid transit can mean all sorts of different things and employ all different kinds of technology. Anyone who has ever ridden on Ottawa's BRT Transitway knows that it is very rapid transit.

A Metro is pretty easy to define..............a grade separated line that can "technically" be automated. That's all it is. This can be heavy rail, rubber or steel wheels SkyTrain, LRT, monorail, or even standard track trains. If the technology improves it could even potentially include buses as long as they too have complete grade separation and can be run automated.

This is why Manila's LRT is considered a Metro but Edmonton's isn't. Even though Edmonton's travels underground it is not fully grade separated which Manila's is. iT also doesn't have anything to do with capacity as there are MANY BRT systems that carry vastly more passengers than many busy Metro lines. There is though an implied frequency of at least every 15 minutes all day, each way at the very minimum.

swimmer_spe · #**7530** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 8:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Rapid transit can mean all sorts of different things and employ all different kinds of technology. Anyone who has ever ridden on Ottawa's BRT Transitway knows that it is very rapid transit.

A Metro is pretty easy to define..............a grade separated line that can "technically" be automated. That's all it is. This can be heavy rail, rubber or steel wheels SkyTrain, LRT, monorail, or even standard track trains. If the technology improves it could even potentially include buses as long as they too have complete grade separation and can be run automated.

This is why Manila's LRT is considered a Metro but Edmonton's isn't. Even though Edmonton's travels underground it is not fully grade separated which Manila's is. iT also doesn't have anything to do with capacity as there are MANY BRT systems that carry vastly more passengers than many busy Metro lines. There is though an implied frequency of at least every 15 minutes all day, each way at the very minimum.

So, does that mean that my list is accurate?

SkahHigh · #**7531** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 12:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, does that mean that my list is accurate?

No.

Canada certainly doesn't have 10 RT systems.

SkahHigh · #**7532** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 12:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is a BS, arbitrary, pointless discussion that comes up frequently and there are no firm definitions of RT or LRT or whatever. Basically what the owner names it is what it is.

That said, the C Train does yield to road traffic at times so your categorization is inaccurate by your standards - the LRT is often held up coming into downtown and always on 7th Ave. I'm not 100% certain how its crossings of busy roads like Heritage are handled either.

It is a pointless discussion that has come up in the past indeed, but I don't think the definition is that vague. To me, a metro system is the only real rapid transit.

If I were a doubter of the term, I'd simply stick to the Wikipedia definitions. They pretty clearly differentiate rapid transit, light rail and commuter rail.

As for BRT, the Wikipedia definition says:

Quote:

Sometimes described as a "surface subway", BRT aims to combine the capacity and speed of light rail or metro with the flexibility, lower cost and simplicity of a bus system.

So while it's a mix of everything, I don't think it can qualify as "only rapid transit".

Edit: Something to further illustrate what I am saying:

Riise · #**7533** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

The problem with this article and this usage of the term Rapid Transit is that it is using it as a synonym for Metro/Subway and that makes it an inaccurate description of the type of service it is describing. A transit service does not need to operate in an exclusive ROW in order to be rapid (i.e. high frequency) so it is not very intuitive to limit the use the term Rapid Transit to only describe transit services that operate in their own ROW.

Using the term Rapid Transit as it is used on Wikipedia seems to be an attempt to find a single term for 'L'/Metro/Subway/Tube/Underground. Unfortunately, they borrowed a word that is more useful in describing high frequency transit services in general.

nname · #**7534** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riise

Using the term Rapid Transit as it is used on Wikipedia seems to be an attempt to find a single term for 'L'/Metro/Subway/Tube/Underground.

That IS what rapid transit means to the rest of the world. Its just that we in North America tends to add more meanings to the term to make ourselves feel better as more systems would qualify.

And seems like we are back to this topic every few months or so

SkahHigh · #**7535** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

That IS what rapid transit means to the rest of the world. Its just that we in North America tends to add more meanings to the term to make ourselves feel better as more systems would qualify.

And seems like we are back to this topic every few months or so

Exactly.

Riise · #**7536** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

That IS what rapid transit means to the rest of the world. Its just that we in North America tends to add more meanings to the term to make ourselves feel better as more systems would qualify.

And seems like we are back to this topic every few months or so

In my experience, I usually hear the word Metro being used for the Wikipedia definition of Rapid Transit in cities outside of North America. Also, I rarely hear the term transit outside of North America with public transport being much more common.

1overcosc · #**7537** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Brampton
Zum - sort of RT It uses stops that are spaced further apart.

Durham Region
DRT Pulse - Sort of. It has less stops than normal buses.

Saskatoon
DART - Sort of. Same as above.

Have I missed any?

Thoughts?

Kingston (#25) has a system like Brampton, Saskatoon, and Durham--buses with limited stops.

swimmer_spe · #**7538** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Kingston (#25) has a system like Brampton, Saskatoon, and Durham--buses with limited stops.

Thank you.

FFX-ME · #**7539** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

The Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa systems are typical light rail (Ottawa is grade-separated but the low-floor Alstom Citadis Spirit is designed for light rail).

I agree that Edmondon's and Calgary's are not RT due to the incomplete grade separation but the confederation line as they are building it will have NO at grade crossings, even in its 2023 expansion to the subburbs. The choice of that vehicle was for flexibility since it allows the opportunity of expanding the line as conventional LRT, but what is being built is clearly a metro:

-Fully grade separated
-Electric rail
-Very high frequency (3 mins)
-high speed
-similar vehicle capacity to Vancouver's Skytrain

what more do you want. Your argument that the geometry of the vehicle is important is just absurd.

1overcosc · #**7540** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I agree that Edmondon's and Calgary's are not RT due to the incomplete grade separation but the confederation line as they are building it will have NO at grade crossings, even in its 2023 expansion to the subburbs. The choice of that vehicle was for flexibility since it allows the opportunity of expanding the line as conventional LRT, but what is being built is clearly a metro:

-Fully grade separated
-Electric rail
-Very high frequency (3 mins)
-high speed
-similar vehicle capacity to Vancouver's Skytrain

what more do you want. Your argument that the geometry of the vehicle is important is just absurd.

Ottawa's system blurs the line more anything else seen in Canada. From a customer and user perspective it's a metro. The only thing is the vehicle type--something that ultimately only transit enthusiasts will even notice.