I don't think anyone replied because no one really agrees nor disagrees. We all agree there are many similarities between different types or transit and that arguing over wording can be tedious, but we also understand that language does have importance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal
I'll apologize right off if this is raining on the transit parade. But you guys are a little crazy. So, here goes nothing - ignore me as you wish.
Does the terminology used matter? There is no worldwide, or North American, or Canadian official definition for any of these terms. Governments, transit agencies, transit system manufacturers, all go by their own terms (legally within their proposal calls and contracts, etc.). Sure they generally tend to align, but there is no authoritative definition for any of them.
|
Well yes, there are North American official definitions for these terms defined by encyclopaedias and organizations like the APTA. They may not be world wide, but that applies to much of the language we use. And the terms we use for things do matter because that's how we know what someone is talking about. I remember a couple of times the debate got reactivated by things like someone excitedly posting "X or Y city finally about to get rapid transit!!" and attracting a bunch of attention and questions from people thinking it was a metro system, and them being like, "duuude, don't be crying wolf"
There are enough words in the English language that we can afford to have different terms for everything, including things that are similar. Having them gives the choice of using very specific terms, or using more generalized terms depending on the situation or settings. If people want to use broader terms like urban rail, higher order transit, etc. they can. Or they can use more specific terms like metro system or rapid transit. If even that's not specific enough, they can add modifiers like high or low capacity, or include more details about the system. All these options are available, but only if people know what one another are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal
Maybe you guys should put a list of terms together, settle on some defining characteristics for those terms and then vote. Then you can stop arguing endlessly and focus on the actual issues: equipment, service, capacity, rail gauge, power systems, noise, reliability, comfort, liveries, and so on. Who cares if Skytrain is termed the same kind as the TTC Subway? There are a myriad assortment of systems out there, and almost as many urban geographies to serve. It matters if a system is grade separated, or if it can move 'x' number of people per hour, or if the stations are close/far . . . these are objective fact based things. It matters very little if a system is called rapid, mass, or whatever. Unless everyone agrees to the definition of these words, they aren't much better than subjective references. If the need is to categorize and group, you still have the same problems. One person's/organization's categories/definitions have little priority over any other.
And if your city seems better to you if you call your system 'whatever,' go for it. But your wasting your time trying to get others to do the same. Yes, wasting; because even if they agree, it doesn't actually mean much.
|
Wanting to use the correct terminology, and wanting to understand and discuss the details are not mutually exclusive.
I've heard people make the argument that because two things are similar, it's confusing or unnecessary to have have separate terms. But in my view, the more different things that are covered by a single term, the more confusing it is because the larger the domain the term covers, the less information it actually provides. So the more additional details a person is forced to include with the term, and the less relevant the term becomes.
Now you may be right that people will be unable to agree upon specific terminology to use. But in order for people to communicate effectively, they need to use words with agreed upon meanings. This is the most basic element to language. Therefore attempting to come to an agreement should not be considered petty or trivial, regardless of success or failure.
Prev
Linear Mode
