The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[eemy]

Mister F, you have to understand that the people you're debating in this thread rather rigidly define terms (I believe from some sort of APTA document dating back to 1996 or something) that are quite evidently out of character with how pretty much every other person in the world uses the terms, so don't expect this discussion to go anywhere. FWIW, MARTA in Atlanta is another "rapid transit" system with rather low frequency on its various lines.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Mister F, you have to understand that the people you're debating in this thread rather rigidly define terms (I believe from some sort of APTA document dating back to 1996 or something) that are quite evidently out of character with how pretty much every other person in the world uses the terms, so don't expect this discussion to go anywhere. FWIW, MARTA in Atlanta is another "rapid transit" system with rather low frequency on its various lines.

Yup that's another one. If this argument is coming from a 20 year old APA manual that just makes me laugh. A manual that's probably meant for technical purposes in another country has no relevance to day to day conversation here. Next thing you know we'll be correcting people when they refer to a hill because road designers call them vertical curves.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That is false, and the BRT analogy makes about as much sense as saying a streetcar, railcar and a car are the same thing since streetcar and railcar has car in the name. And yes, terms are sometimes used inaccurately for the sake of marketing, but that doesn't suddenly make them correct. But if you prefer to use inaccurate terms, then I obviously can't stop you nor is it worth the effort to try and persuade you. I would just suggest that you provide some clarification when using the terms so that people will know what you're talking about as to avoid future confusion.

BRT isn't a historic term that has its roots in centuries of transportation technology the way that "car" is. It was called BRT specifically because it's thought of as rapid transit and, depending on how it's designed, can be built as rapid transit. Whether or not it's accurate is a matter of opinion. Incorrect according to whom? Is there an International Transit Naming Council that I'm unaware of?

[ssiguy]

I NEVER said there weren't other forms of rapid transit that may or maynot not be faster than a Metro. I didn't define rapid transit but simply a Metro.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Yup that's another one. If this argument is coming from a 20 year old APA manual that just makes me laugh. A manual that's probably meant for technical purposes in another country has no relevance to day to day conversation here. Next thing you know we'll be correcting people when they refer to a hill because road designers call them vertical curves.

You're making baseless assumptions about real information sources about a topic and drawing conclusions based on those assumption, then mocking people who are actually using real information rather than ignoring it in favour of "day to day conversations" aka colloquialism. No wonder you're laughing... that's hilarious.

But what I find most ironic is that it was you who insisted that the changes being made to GO require it to be labeled as the specific term "rapid transit" yet seem appalled at the notion that such terms should have specific definitions and criteria. But obviously they must in order for an existing railway network to change from one thing into another simply by upgrading service. So where do these rigid thresholds actually lie? When does GO change from commuter rail into "rapid transit" in these made up definitions?

And FYI, the APTA is North American in scope and all the major transit operators in Canada are members.

Originally Posted by Mister F

BRT isn't a historic term that has its roots in centuries of transportation technology the way that "car" is. It was called BRT specifically because it's thought of as rapid transit and, depending on how it's designed, can be built as rapid transit. Whether or not it's accurate is a matter of opinion. Incorrect according to whom? Is there an International Transit Naming Council that I'm unaware of?

No, BRT was a term coined by bus manufacturers who wanted to promote bus sales by promoting a glamorous term for buses to overcome the stigma attached to them. It wasn't because it was "thought of as rapid transit".

But obviously you've made up your mind and have taken to the refuge of snarkter (snarky laughter) so I'll leave you to it.

[flipv]

GO changes from commuter rail the second it offers all day two way service on its lines at reasonable frequencies. It then becomes rapid transit. I fail to see how REM is "metro" but RER isn't. Hint: neither are a "metro".

Commuter rail is (by definition in its name) for commuters primarily. Ie: to downtown in am peak, back to suburbs in pm peak.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by flipv

GO changes from commuter rail the second it offers all day two way service on its lines at reasonable frequencies. It then becomes rapid transit. I fail to see how REM is "metro" but RER isn't. Hint: neither are a "metro".

Commuter rail is (by definition in its name) for commuters primarily. Ie: to downtown in am peak, back to suburbs in pm peak.

That doesn't answer anything. What frequency constitutes as "reasonable"? The existing Lakeshore lines already have half hourly all-day service. Is that not reasonable? If not, then what? 25 minutes? 20 minutes? 22.5 minutes? Where is this mysterious threshold, and where can we find it documented? The fact that such a fundamental change occurs the very "second" the upgrade takes effect means it's obviously a very important and I'm sure very well publicized point.

[1overcosc]

Here's how I see it.

Is RER a metro? No.
Is it rapid transit? Yes.

Furthermore, the Toronto RER and Montreal REM are comparable. If REM is considered rapid transit, then RER is also rapid transit, and vice versa.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That doesn't answer anything. What frequency constitutes as "reasonable"? The existing Lakeshore lines already have half hourly all-day service. Is that not reasonable? If not, then what? 25 minutes? 20 minutes? 22.5 minutes? Where is this mysterious threshold, and where can we find it documented? The fact that such a fundamental change occurs the very "second" the upgrade takes effect means it's obviously a very important and I'm sure very well publicized point.

Har har. Save the sass for someone else.

GO's LS line isn't a commuter line as is. GO lines cease being one when their service runs all day both ways.

All day two way service every 15 mins (at start) is rapid transit. Hourly capacity likely exceeds REM. Stop spacing is also similar.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by flipv

Har har. Save the sass for someone else.

GO's LS line isn't a commuter line as is. GO lines cease being one when their service runs all day both ways.

All day two way service every 15 mins (at start) is rapid transit. Hourly capacity likely exceeds REM. Stop spacing is also similar.

It isn't "sass", it's a genuine question and one I noticed to conveniently failed to answer. Where is this standard for rapid transit documented? And if the Lakeshore lines already passed the threshold for being rapid transit, at what point was it? Did it require the full 1/2 hour headways, or what about 35 or 40 minute? Would that have sufficed?

If this is able to be verified, commuter and suburban rail will turn out to be surprisingly rare in a global context as most commuter and suburban rail services globally can easily meet or exceed this.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Here's how I see it.

Is RER a metro? No.
Is it rapid transit? Yes.

Furthermore, the Toronto RER and Montreal REM are comparable. If REM is considered rapid transit, then RER is also rapid transit, and vice versa.

The main differences that I see between the two, are:

1) that the shared high frequency section of the REM will be about 1/2 the total route and will carry the majority of the riders wheras in the RER it will be limited to a very small proportion. (like, 1/20?). And of course a system is characterized by its prevailing traits (like everything else).
2) The REM will be an isolated system free from not only level crossings (by necessity as an automated system) but also free from other rail traffic which is a defining difference between rapid transit/metro system and mainline railways.
3) The REM frequency will be, at its lowest, still higher than RER at its lowest with RER having about 25% longer headways.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The main differences that I see between the two, are:

1) that the shared high frequency section of the REM will be about 1/2 the total route and will carry the majority of the riders wheras in the RER it will be limited to a very small proportion. (like, 1/20?). And of course a system is characterized by its prevailing traits (like everything else).

Much of the RER network will have sub-10 minute frequency throughout the day. The outer parts of the lines that were expected to have poor frequencies (to Barrie, to Hamilton, etc.) were dropped from RER entirely and are now slated to have improved commuter rail instead. As a tradeoff, much of the remaining RER network is higher frequency.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

2) The REM will be an isolated system free from not only level crossings (by necessity as an automated system) but also free from other rail traffic which is a defining difference between rapid transit/metro system and mainline railways.

I would argue this to be one of those academic distinctions that matters more to transit geeks than riders. RER lines will have a high level of separation from mainline trains. While not full grade separation, it will have the same effect on service as if it was.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

3) The REM frequency will be, at its lowest, still higher than RER at its lowest with RER having about 25% longer headways.

RER bottoms out at 15 minutes whereas REM will go to about that if not slightly worse in the off-peak. The "4-13 minutes" you always hear for the REM is for peak frequencies only.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Much of the RER network will have sub-10 minute frequency throughout the day. The outer parts of the lines that were expected to have poor frequencies (to Barrie, to Hamilton, etc.) were dropped from RER entirely and are now slated to have improved commuter rail instead. As a tradeoff, much of the remaining RER network is higher frequency.



I would argue this to be one of those academic distinctions that matters more to transit geeks than riders. RER lines will have a high level of separation from mainline trains. While not full grade separation, it will have the same effect on service as if it was.



RER bottoms out at 15 minutes whereas REM will go to about that if not slightly worse in the off-peak. The "4-13 minutes" you always hear for the REM is for peak frequencies only.

No it isn't. Peak service will be every 3 minutes on the main trunk (Between the South Shore and Bois-Franc) and every 6 minutes in the 3 branches to the west.

Off peak service is every 6 minutes on the main trunk and every 12 minutes on the branches to the west.

Source: cdpqinfra

[ssiguy]

REM will be a Metro and RER won't even if it runs every 3 minutes because REM is gradeseparated and RER isn't. Both will certainly be rapid transit but only REM will be a Metro. I fail to see what you don't understand about that.

[Mister F]

^Well, some are arguing that rapid transit is metro only while others are arguing that it's a more general term.

For those who are wondering how Smarttrack is evolving, the project website gives the latest. It seems that they're exploring options C and D, which propose to integrate Smarttrack and the already underway RER. Essentially it would be beefed up RER.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're making baseless assumptions about real information sources about a topic and drawing conclusions based on those assumption, then mocking people who are actually using real information rather than ignoring it in favour of "day to day conversations" aka colloquialism. No wonder you're laughing... that's hilarious.

But what I find most ironic is that it was you who insisted that the changes being made to GO require it to be labeled as the specific term "rapid transit" yet seem appalled at the notion that such terms should have specific definitions and criteria. But obviously they must in order for an existing railway network to change from one thing into another simply by upgrading service. So where do these rigid thresholds actually lie? When does GO change from commuter rail into "rapid transit" in these made up definitions?

And FYI, the APTA is North American in scope and all the major transit operators in Canada are members.




No, BRT was a term coined by bus manufacturers who wanted to promote bus sales by promoting a glamorous term for buses to overcome the stigma attached to them. It wasn't because it was "thought of as rapid transit".

But obviously you've made up your mind and have taken to the refuge of snarkter (snarky laughter) so I'll leave you to it.

In every field there are technical terms that mean one thing to people working in those fields and something else to the other 99% of the population. A theory in everyday life and a theory in science are different things entirely, for example. That doesn't mean that everyone who's not a scientist is wrong, it just means that the word has a different meaning outside that technical context. As for rapid transit, Wikipedia gives S-bahn style regional systems as a variation of it. The Oxford dictionary gives light rail as an example. The Cambridge dictionary keeps it general, referring to fast moving trains in a city (and certain subways in rush hour are are anything but fast moving).

In any case, we're not designing a railway so there's no need to worry about how APTA or any other body defines certain terms in their engineering manuals. It has a more general meaning in day to day life that's no less correct than what a manual says.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The main differences that I see between the two, are:

1) that the shared high frequency section of the REM will be about 1/2 the total route and will carry the majority of the riders wheras in the RER it will be limited to a very small proportion. (like, 1/20?). And of course a system is characterized by its prevailing traits (like everything else).

Assuming you mean 10 minutes for high frequency, the portion of RER that will meet that is anywhere that two or more lines converge or where the service is enhanced by Smarttrack. That means from Pearson Airport to Unionville, a distance of 52 km.

[caltrane74]

Metrolinx has been spending major money on the rail network inside the 416 to truly separate their network from mainline freight. You can feel the difference in speed when in the 905/416 and then the exurbs, when it really slows down because of shared rails/and level crossings. So imagine the difference in speed once the line is electrified in the with the GTA and specifically inside 416 where there are few level crossings left on the network.

Also,

From the example posted for Smarttrack which is a future extension of RER you can see that inside 416 that express service will run 20 mins and 10 mins on combined lines. With RER and Smarttrack (a future investment extension on RER) combined line frequency comes down to 4 mins in the central core. So an improvement on the RER core frequency on combined lines of around 7 mins. With electric trains, I can't see why there would be much delay in adding a few more stations inside the 416 around the downtown core to add to the convenience of the lines and the neighborhoods they run through.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

RER bottoms out at 15 minutes...

I'm not sure what you mean by bottoms out. Did you mean to state that was the highest capacity service that would be provided?

Some lines (like Lake Shore West) will have to provide higher capacity as they have higher ridership today than 15 minute RER could support. Lake Shore West (all-stop and express combined) has trains stopping at Union today (during peak AM hour) every 6 minutes. So, even if you assume the trains don't change size and ridership doesn't grow, Lake Shore West still needs to hit 6 minute combined frequencies of express + local at peak.


All that said, provincial elections are coming up and I think the RER implementation timeline will probably slip (possibly by a decade).

[ssiguy]

I disagree with you about pushing back the deadline. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories pushed it up and expanded it to areas like Peterborough, Niagara, Cambridge, and Brantford.

You have to remember the service area RER will be primarily serving. It will be rapid transit for those in the 905 and outer 416 areas that will benefit the most. These areas are key to the next election and no one will but their political balls on the line and delay the RER. Even if the Tories win, any delay of RER will be met with hostility from the populace and the MPPs who represent them.

If there are any delays it will be for Toronto centered transit that will be most beneficial to the inner city where the Tories wouldn't get any seats regardless, ie the DRL.

[caltrane74]

Yeah, I don't see the Tories stopping implementation of the "Big Move" projects, but they may move to the Montreal style plan to have the private sector finance and construct new transit lines.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I would argue this to be one of those academic distinctions that matters more to transit geeks than riders. RER lines will have a high level of separation from mainline trains. While not full grade separation, it will have the same effect on service as if it was.

Yes, it's certainly true that few ordinary riders would have such discussions. The only problem is, this is a site full of hard core transit and urban planning geeks.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

RER bottoms out at 15 minutes whereas REM will go to about that if not slightly worse in the off-peak. The "4-13 minutes" you always hear for the REM is for peak frequencies only.

I was going by one of the diagrams I saw of REM which shows the outer branches with headways posted as 6-12 minutes. So if its lowest was 12 minutes, 15 minutes would be 25% longer. But at this fairly early stage, we'll have to wait to see what the final service levels will actually be.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

In every field there are technical terms that mean one thing to people working in those fields and something else to the other 99% of the population. A theory in everyday life and a theory in science are different things entirely, for example. That doesn't mean that everyone who's not a scientist is wrong, it just means that the word has a different meaning outside that technical context. As for rapid transit, Wikipedia gives S-bahn style regional systems as a variation of it. The Oxford dictionary gives light rail as an example. The Cambridge dictionary keeps it general, referring to fast moving trains in a city (and certain subways in rush hour are are anything but fast moving).

In any case, we're not designing a railway so there's no need to worry about how APTA or any other body defines certain terms in their engineering manuals. It has a more general meaning in day to day life that's no less correct than what a manual says.

Although most wouldn't consider Wikipedia a very reliable source, if you do, take note that when you search for the term "metro system" you're immediately redirected to the page "rapid transit". And of course for a topic like this, almost any encyclopedia is going to be more accurate than a dictionary, since dics do little more than scratch the surface.

If you read the encyclopedia Britannica's "subway" page, it starts out by establishing that the term could also mean metro, underground, or tube, and part way through the article, it uses the term rapid transit as interchangeable. Same thing as "Info Please's" Encyclopedia which has a rapid transit page, where it discusses it interchangebly with metro and subway, and says there are about "160 metropolitan rapid transit systems in the world" which coincidentally enough is the same number of systems listed in Wikipedia's "List of Metro Systems" page. So yes, the terms are indeed one and the same. But of course, if RER will actually have metro/rapid transit service levels for the majority of its length, then maybe this is all a moot point as it could just be rounded up to a metro system.