The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 383

jmt18325 · #**7641** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Something rather different than rapid transit,

They cleverly disguised this by putting rapid transit in the name. Very clever.

Nouvellecosse · #**7642** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

They cleverly disguised this by putting rapid transit in the name. Very clever.

Indeed. Apparently the term was originally coined by bus manufacturers in the hopes of marketing buses as an alternative to urban rail systems. They were successful in getting the lingo adopted, but less successful in causing BRT to become really widespread.

hipster duck · #**7643** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 1:13 AM**

It bears mentioning (repeating?) that one of the reasons - in fact, one of the principal reasons - for building light rail or bus rapid transit is that you have the flexibility of running the vehicle in cheaper, non-grade separated scenarios as demand/need/cost warrants

For example, you could run a bus in a fully grade-separated busway where even access to the platforms at stations is fare-controlled through gates, but that bus can then exit the busway and travel down city streets picking people up at regular stops where they enter at the front and pay the driver.

In San Francisco, the same MUNI metro train goes from being a light rail vehicle stopping only at subway stations to a light rail train in a median on the surface, all the way down to a big streetcar that deposits passengers right on the street at stops. They even bought special LRVs where the floors at the entrances/exits descend to accommodate everything from the high platform subway stations to no platform whatsoever on the street.

Are these examples of rapid transit? Who cares! As long as it does the job: transporting a sufficient capacity of people from point A to point B in a time-competitive way.

jmt18325 · #**7644** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Indeed. Apparently the term was originally coined by bus manufacturers in the hopes of marketing buses as an alternative to urban rail systems. They were successful in getting the lingo adopted, but less successful in causing BRT to become really widespread.

I would agree that BRT is in a category of it's own, just like LRT. At the same time, it can't be lumped in with normal bus service.

Marshal · #**7645** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 1:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your opinion of an official definition. It absolutely does not require a government or legal status. All it requires is someone "appointed or authorized to act in a designated capacity" according to the dictionary, which the APTA would certainly qualify in terms of public transit. And when it comes to language, yes the dictionary and encyclopaedias count.

Determining clear definitions for this thread and getting everyone to learn and use them is exactly what we're trying to do in case you haven't noticed. We just haven't been successful in coming to agreement.

But as far as language is concerned, the point is having agreed upon ways to convey specific meanings. Quibbling about the term "words" is just being silly.

Well, I suppose your are right afterall. That would suffice for highschool and layman terms. (I don't intend to be insulting (seriously)) but from a professional standpoint, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

You say "appointed and authorized." By who? The APTA formed itself. The APTA was not appointed or authorized by anyone. So, where does its authority come from? If another group forms, are their definitions equally valid even if they differ? See what I mean? In the US, the only authority that could appoint and authorize the APTA would be the USDOT. Yup, we are back to the legal body that is government.

The only real instance when these terms matter is exactly when legality is being engaged: when a body is contracting a manufacturer to design and build something. Otherwise, it ain't important. This thread would be just as interesting if all the petty arguments were erased. That would leave the fact based discussion.

Regardless. One last thing: when you say, ". . . is exactly what we're trying to do in case you haven't noticed. We just haven't been successful in coming to agreement," are you rolling around on the floor laughing. 300+ posts and you are still doing this and failing. Will you ever "[agree] upon ways to convey specific meanings" in your lifetime? Maybe after 600 posts and another 8 years.

My offer stands.

Marshal · #**7646** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Indeed. Apparently the term was originally coined by bus manufacturers in the hopes of marketing buses as an alternative to urban rail systems. They were successful in getting the lingo adopted, but less successful in causing BRT to become really widespread.

Bingo! An authoritative term coming out of the promotions department.

Nouvellecosse · #**7647** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

You say "appointed and authorized." By who? The APTA formed itself. The APTA was not appointed or authorized by anyone. So, where does its authority come from? If another group forms, are their definitions equally valid even if they differ? See what I mean? In the US, the only authority that could appoint and authorize the APTA would be the USDOT. Yup, we are back to the legal body that is government.

It was "appointed" by the public transit sector, among which the vast majority of major agencies have joined and participated in the organization giving it legitimacy. If another organization forms and has greater levels of participation from the sector and greater influence, then it's legitimacy and authority on the topic would usurp the APTA.

Nouvellecosse · #**7648** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

Bingo! An authoritative term coming out of the promotions department.

The term is commonly used, but it wasn't given "authority" until it was adopted by the industry. That being said, it certainly wouldn't classify it as having the level of legitimacy of older terms which have been around many decades.

Marshal · #**7649** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It was "appointed" by the public transit sector, among which the vast majority of major agencies have joined and participated in the organization giving it legitimacy. If another organization forms and has greater levels of participation from the sector and greater influence, then it's legitimacy and authority on the topic would usurp the APTA.

You're not getting it. But, that's OK. This discussion with you has shown me why this thread is so screwed up. But, if you enjoy it, that's a good thing for you.

Are you sure you don't want to see if we can create this thread's own list of defined terms to help people stay on track? Even if it comes straight out of the APTA. Or do you look forward to the next 8 years?

I am interested in transit issues, systems and technologies. But I won't be coming to this thread to discuss any of it unless all of this nonesense changes.

p.s. Nouvellecosse, I have read back a fair bit, so I know that you are one of the reasonable guys.

Nouvellecosse · #**7650** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

Well, I suppose your are right afterall. That would suffice for highschool and layman terms. (I don't intend to be insulting (seriously)) but from a professional standpoint, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

I find it rather bizarre that you would make such a bold claim when industry leaders such as Bombardier, Siemens, kinkisharyo, etc. all use the term on a frequent basis. Go to their websites and search the term and there are countless hits. It may not be an industry term in the sense of the engineers and technicians who install the components, but in terms of those who design and market the services, it certainly is.

swimmer_spe · #**7651** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

You're not getting it. But, that's OK. This little discussion with you has shown me why this thread is so bad. But, if you enjoy it, that's a good thing for you.

Are you sure you don't want to see if we can create this thread's own list of defined terms to help people stay on track? Even if it comes straight out of the APTA. Or do you look forward to the next 8 years?

I am interested in transit issues, systems and technologies. But I won't be coming to this thread to discuss any of it unless it changes.

p.s. Nouvellecosse, I have read back a fair bit, so I know that you are one of the reasonable guys.

As the OP, Is talking about Canadian transit and the various ways that it is done in this country not what this thread is?

Nouvellecosse · #**7652** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

You're not getting it. But, that's OK. This little discussion with you has shown me why this thread is so bad. But, if you enjoy it, that's a good thing for you.

Are you sure you don't want to see if we can create this thread's own list of defined terms to help people stay on track? Even if it comes straight out of the APTA. Or do you look forward to the next 8 years?

I am interested in transit issues, systems and technologies. But I won't be coming to this thread to discuss any of it unless it changes.

p.s. Nouvellecosse, I have read back a fair bit, so I know that you are one of the reasonable guys.

"Even if it comes straight out of the APTA"

If we were willing to use terms out of the APTA then this discussion all would have ended years ago. The issue is that some people simply want to invent their own terms based on what they feel is the most flattering to the city in which they live, and get mad if others don't accept and use them.

PS. Let's be very clear here. I don't agree with your conclusions. Don't keep trying to make it out like you're some supreme source of knowledge and others simply can't "understand".

"Not getting it"

SkahHigh · #**7653** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:30 AM**

Again, I don't see how discussing politely about public transit terms in the transit thread is a bad thing. If you don't like the discussion, then just leave...

Innsertnamehere · #**7654** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Why is it everytime there is a debate, people complain? Divergeance of opinion is what makes this forum interesting...

Because 90% of this thread is arguing over technical definitions, instead of news about transit or discussion of individual projects. It's divergence of opinion, but a constant, repetitive form of divergence.

mistercorporate · #**7655** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Because 90% of this thread is arguing over technical definitions, instead of news about transit or discussion of individual projects. It's divergence of opinion, but a constant, repetitive form of divergence.

Amen.

Marshal · #**7656** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

"Even if it comes straight out of the APTA"

If we were willing to use terms out of the APTA then this discussion all would have ended years ago. The issue is that some people simply want to invent their own terms based on what they feel is the most flattering to the city in which they live, and get mad if others don't accept and use them.

PS. Let's be very clear here. I don't agree with your conclusions. Don't keep trying to make it out like you're some supreme source of knowledge and others simply can't "understand".

"Not getting it"

Oh, but I am. I though everyone was told.

Marshal · #**7657** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Amen.

Amen Again. I am out of here.

swimmer_spe · #**7658** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 2:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Because 90% of this thread is arguing over technical definitions, instead of news about transit or discussion of individual projects. It's divergence of opinion, but a constant, repetitive form of divergence.

I was trying to have the "Hey, look at how the cities in Canada have built various faster transit."

SkahHigh · #**7659** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 3:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

Amen Again. I am out of here.

Thank you!

Nouvellecosse · #**7660** Posted **Dec 15, 2015, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal

Amen Again. I am out of here.

I didn't intend to drive you away from the thread. I admit I have a temper and I can overreact when I perceive someone as having a smug or condescending attitude. But I realise it's possible to misinterpret these things and if that's the case, I apologize.