The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So, if I ran old TTC rolling stock with third rail power but had level crossings (which is totally possible), what would it be ������

It'd make the most sense to call it a metro, I think.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There is no ridged definition. That is part of the problem. Take BRT. At what point does it switch to just an express bus?

Probably once you remove the dedicated ROW. The bus transport can't be rapid if it's fighting with regular traffic.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

It'd make the most sense to call it a metro, I think.

So then what is Calgary and Edmonton’s high floor systems?

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So then what is Calgary and Edmonton’s high floor systems?

There's a difference between old TTC stock and the current ETS/C-Train stock, I'd imagine. I don't have the blueprints for either but I'm sure there's a few differences between the TTC's heavy stock, and the Albertans' light stock, even if it doesn't look that way at first glance.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So, if I ran old TTC rolling stock with third rail power but had level crossings (which is totally possible), what would it be ������

An abomination.

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

Probably once you remove the dedicated ROW. The bus transport can't be rapid if it's fighting with regular traffic.

Ok, so if there is a reserved lane, that is BRT, but no reserve lane, but it is an express route, it is not BRT? Ottawa and Winnipeg, as well as Haifax may want to talk to you. Some parts of their RT isn't in reserve lanes, but could be considered RT anyways.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Like any definition in the world there are always exceptions and grey zones in the edges.

For Canada with regards the term metro in its generally excepted grade separated sense I would define our systems as the following:

Metro: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa.

Not Metro: All others

I'd think maybe my requirement are more relaxed... If the system have reasonable amount of at-grade gated crossing, and the entire system runs at high speed, high frequency, and no street-running sections, then I will still count it as Metro. Say if we put a few gated at-grade crossings at Vancouver's or Toronto's system while the train run through it at 80 or 90km/h, then it's still a Metro. But if the train have to slow down to 50km/h to "obey the street's speed limit", then it's not. Similarly, if we reduce the mid-day frequency for both systems to every 30min, then they're not Metro even if they are fully grade separated.

Edmonton's first line certainly very close to being Metro in my opinion. Calgary have street-running downtown section and some badly aligned ungated crossings, so no. But seems like new lines from both systems are going the opposite direction, away from being a "Metro" system....

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So, if I ran old TTC rolling stock with third rail power but had level crossings (which is totally possible), what would it be ������

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

It'd make the most sense to call it a metro, I think.

Hold on though. Yes it's possible to run that rolling stock with level crossings and even use third rail (there are third rail lines in greater NYC and London with both) doing so at metro-like frequencies would be a bit of a stretch. With trains that come generally every 5 min per direction or better like most metro systems in Canada (sometimes every 2.5 min or less) it would be very difficult for traffic to cross the line as the crossing boom would be down as much as it would be up. There would be a huge risk of accidents as well with that much interaction with cross traffic affecting both the transit service and the traffic. And if it was in a dense urban setting with lots of pedestrians there would be a risk of not only collisions but also electrocutions. So the question is, how frequently would the trains run? Well that's where you get a big part of the metro vs not metro question. A combination of service characteristics and rolling stock.

It isn't that it wouldn't be possible to have frequent service with third rail and level crossing, as many things would be possible if one so desired. It just wouldn't be optimal to the point that most reasonable people would choose not to do it. If you wanted to, you could have a metro system run by battery, diesel, or propane rather than having the route electrified but that would create more problems than it could ever hope to solve. If you wanted to you could also use the GO train coaches in a metro. It just wouldn't work very well so people don't do it.

So to answer the initial question, if the system ran service consistently to all stations at least every 10 minutes all day I'd call it a (crappy) metro. If parts of it ran only every 15-20 min, I'd call it a frequent commuter/regional rail like the s-Bahn. Commuter/regional rail services can be very frequent and operate similarly to some LRT/Stadbahn services but they wouldn't be called such unless using tram-type rolling stock.

[Doady]

I think the problem with at-grade crossings is it implies lower frequencies and smaller trains, and thus lower capacities. That's what rapid transit or heavy rail is really about. It's not about the speed of the system, it's about capacity.

I think that's the problem with all the BRT vs. LRT vs. subway debates. It's not about attracting new riders at all. It's just about being able to serve the current riders.

Like, Ottawa was one of leaders in transit in North America with BRT, but so many articulated buses got stuck in the snow, they could no longer rely on articulated buses to serve such a large number of riders, they needed LRVs and trains. Building new transit infrastructure is not about solving the problem of too low ridership, it's about the solving the problem of too high ridership.

As GO Train service continues to increase, as more and more crossings become grade-separated as needed, it will become a subway/metro system as well. Grade-separation is needed for GO Trains to have frequent service all day in both directions and thus become rapid transit.

People think of "rapid transit" is meaning faster transit, but it's really about increasing the capacity of transit. Higher speeds can be more appealing, but the real benefit of higher speeds is increasing the amount of service and thus the capacity of the system. For example, 10 buses travelling at average speed of 15km/h along a 15km route means 12 minute frequency. If the speed of those 10 buses were increased to 20km/h, the frequency of the route would increase to 9 minutes, and significantly higher level of service.

And that's really the key to attracting new riders. Just the amount of service. It could be 100 buses, or it could be 100 trains, they provide the same amount of service if they are travelling at the same speeds. As long as they are able to fulfill the demand, bus vs. light rail vs. subway doesn't matter at all.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Doady

I think the problem with at-grade crossings is it implies lower frequencies and smaller trains, and thus lower capacities. That's what rapid transit or heavy rail is really about. It's not about the speed of the system, it's about capacity.

That's not always true. There are many rail lines in countries like Japan, which have tons of at-grade crossing, yet there are still frequent service with long trains at high speed. To me that's more of a metro system than some systems that are fully grade-separated but have very infrequent service.

Another important things that's often overlooked is reliability. A system that will always get you from station A to B in 15min would be much better than a system that may take anywhere between 10 and 25min. If someone cannot be late for an appointment or for work, then he or she will need to reserve some extra time for the commute if the system is unreliable, even if the advertised travel time is the same. There's no doubt that more at-grade crossing being put into the system, then there's a higher chance of the system being unreliable. Even worse if the crossing is not prioritized, or if there are street-running sections.

So if they have at-grade crossings but still able to maintain high frequency and highly reliable service, then I'd have no problem consider those as Metro... This is the type of system some pro-LRT people claim LRT can be as good as fully grade-separated system, but this is NOT the type of system proposed for all the LRT project. We don't live in a society that allows train blocking off intersections 50% of the time, or running alongside an arterial road at 90km/h.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If parts of it ran only every 15-20 min, I'd call it a frequent commuter/regional rail like the s-Bahn. Commuter/regional rail services can be very frequent and operate similarly to some LRT/Stadbahn services but they wouldn't be called such unless using tram-type rolling stock.

I don't want to be super nitpicky or single you out, Nouvellecosse, but I've seen a few people misunderstand the S-Bahn and ended up talking past someone once about regional rail because of it.

In Germany, at least, the S-Bahn is a different level of service from regional rail.

Regional trains run at hourly frequencies or less, aren't always electrified, always run on different tracks from S-Bahns, and often aren't even opperated by Deutsche Bahn. They cast a wide net over provinces or regions; I could, for example, take a regional train from Berlin to just about anywhere in Brandenburg, including to Fankfurt on the Oder, and walk over to Poland.

S-Bahn frequency and level of service varies by the system. Leipzig's runs very far afield, at pretty low frequency. In Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahns are third-rail-powered, heavy-metro trains, essentially the same as U-Bahns but with wider stop spacing and, therefore, faster service over distance. The other bigger systems use catenary power but run at high frequency like metro rail.

The main difference is that the S-Bahn systems are focused on cities. Even in the Rhine-Ruhr Gebiet where a half-dozen cities run into each other, the S-Bahns aren't oriented towards moving people between those cities--that's what regional rail is for. It is possible to travel from Cologne to Dortmund by S-Bahn, but there's no need to; regional trains are faster.

Canada's metro systems are often already a lot like an S-Bahn. Toronto's Yonge-Spadina line has most stops over a kilometer apart, with service oriented towards bringing the suburbs to the city centre--it's comparable to a Berlin/Hamburg S-Bahn (the Bloor line is a sincere U-Bahn line). The Skytrain is like a futuristic S-Bahn with small trains. Montreal's REM will be an S-Bahn. Smart Track will provide Munich-like S-Bahn service for a small part of the city. GO RER will be something like an S-Bahn but with regional rail stop density.

Anyway, there's a whole lot of rail service possible before jumping into making a regional-metro hybrid like an S-Bahn. I've said before that I think Canada's one-size-fits all transit systems are worse than they should be. That they exist is a function of being so far behind on rail service--Germans spent decades upgrading regional lines to S-Bahn lines, they didn't need to jump up and build things from scratch. Still, most of Canada's midsized cities would be better served building regional rail (not anywhere close to S-Bahn service) and trams. KW, for example, could build new GO stations at the extreme east and west ends of the city, keep gradually building ION, in 20 years add some more GO stations in between, and only then bring the frequency up to S-Bahn service. That would make a very good transit system for a city of one million.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by biguc

I don't want to be super nitpicky or single you out, Nouvellecosse, but I've seen a few people misunderstand the S-Bahn and ended up talking past someone once about regional rail because of it.

In Germany, at least, the S-Bahn is a different level of service from regional rail.

Regional trains run at hourly frequencies or less, aren't always electrified, always run on different tracks from S-Bahns, and often aren't even opperated by Deutsche Bahn. They cast a wide net over provinces or regions; I could, for example, take a regional train from Berlin to just about anywhere in Brandenburg, including to Fankfurt on the Oder, and walk over to Poland.

S-Bahn frequency and level of service varies by the system. Leipzig's runs very far afield, at pretty low frequency. In Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahns are third-rail-powered, heavy-metro trains, essentially the same as U-Bahns but with wider stop spacing and, therefore, faster service over distance. The other bigger systems use catenary power but run at high frequency like metro rail.

The main difference is that the S-Bahn systems are focused on cities. Even in the Rhine-Ruhr Gebiet where a half-dozen cities run into each other, the S-Bahns aren't oriented towards moving people between those cities--that's what regional rail is for. It is possible to travel from Cologne to Dortmund by S-Bahn, but there's no need to; regional trains are faster.

Canada's metro systems are often already a lot like an S-Bahn. Toronto's Yonge-Spadina line has most stops over a kilometer apart, with service oriented towards bringing the suburbs to the city centre--it's comparable to a Berlin/Hamburg S-Bahn (the Bloor line is a sincere U-Bahn line). The Skytrain is like a futuristic S-Bahn with small trains. Montreal's REM will be an S-Bahn. Smart Track will provide Munich-like S-Bahn service for a small part of the city. GO RER will be something like an S-Bahn but with regional rail stop density.

Anyway, there's a whole lot of rail service possible before jumping into making a regional-metro hybrid like an S-Bahn. I've said before that I think Canada's one-size-fits all transit systems are worse than they should be. That they exist is a function of being so far behind on rail service--Germans spent decades upgrading regional lines to S-Bahn lines, they didn't need to jump up and build things from scratch. Still, most of Canada's midsized cities would be better served building regional rail (not anywhere close to S-Bahn service) and trams. KW, for example, could build new GO stations at the extreme east and west ends of the city, keep gradually building ION, in 20 years add some more GO stations in between, and only then bring the frequency up to S-Bahn service. That would make a very good transit system for a city of one million.

To be clear, I was talking about regional rail in the Anglophone world sense. People like Reece from the RM Transit youtube channel refer to systems such as German S-Bahn, Paris RER or the Australian suburban rail systems as regional rail because in North America the term commuter rail tends to connote slow, often diesel-locomotive pulled peak-centric services. We don't really have a term for S-Bahn services. So when i use the term regional rail I am simply using it in the North American sense. I believe the North American use of the term originated from the English translation of the French RER, referring to a frequent, all day commuter/suburban rail network - like an S-Bahn or RER service, and in no way refers to the German definition which i wouldn't be using unless discussing German systems. I feel it's safe enough to do that because the German concept of regional rail that you mentioned doesn't tend to be commonly recognised here. I don't think this is an issue of anyone not understanding the S-Bahn systems, but rather an attempt to describe something that in our region doesn't have a well established term yet.

And yes, S-Bahn systems vary greatly so I agree that one shouldn't limit the term S-Bahn to a Berlin or Munich type system when there are many more modest examples.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by nname

That's not always true. There are many rail lines in countries like Japan, which have tons of at-grade crossing, yet there are still frequent service with long trains at high speed. To me that's more of a metro system than some systems that are fully grade-separated but have very infrequent service.

Another important things that's often overlooked is reliability. A system that will always get you from station A to B in 15min would be much better than a system that may take anywhere between 10 and 25min. If someone cannot be late for an appointment or for work, then he or she will need to reserve some extra time for the commute if the system is unreliable, even if the advertised travel time is the same. There's no doubt that more at-grade crossing being put into the system, then there's a higher chance of the system being unreliable. Even worse if the crossing is not prioritized, or if there are street-running sections.

So if they have at-grade crossings but still able to maintain high frequency and highly reliable service, then I'd have no problem consider those as Metro... This is the type of system some pro-LRT people claim LRT can be as good as fully grade-separated system, but this is NOT the type of system proposed for all the LRT project. We don't live in a society that allows train blocking off intersections 50% of the time, or running alongside an arterial road at 90km/h.

You need to come to Calgary and watch the LRT zip along at 80kph and block Heritage Dr for up to 50% of the time at perfectly uncoordinated peak.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

You need to come to Calgary and watch the LRT zip along at 80kph and block Heritage Dr for up to 50% of the time at perfectly uncoordinated peak.

And yet at 4 Ave SW we allow the cars to make the train wait 50% of the time.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And yet at 4 Ave SW we allow the cars to make the train wait 50% of the time.

Compromises to save a billion bucks.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Doady

I think the problem with at-grade crossings is it implies lower frequencies and smaller trains, and thus lower capacities. That's what rapid transit or heavy rail is really about. It's not about the speed of the system, it's about capacity.

I think that's the problem with all the BRT vs. LRT vs. subway debates. It's not about attracting new riders at all. It's just about being able to serve the current riders.

Like, Ottawa was one of leaders in transit in North America with BRT, but so many articulated buses got stuck in the snow, they could no longer rely on articulated buses to serve such a large number of riders, they needed LRVs and trains. Building new transit infrastructure is not about solving the problem of too low ridership, it's about the solving the problem of too high ridership.

As GO Train service continues to increase, as more and more crossings become grade-separated as needed, it will become a subway/metro system as well. Grade-separation is needed for GO Trains to have frequent service all day in both directions and thus become rapid transit.

People think of "rapid transit" is meaning faster transit, but it's really about increasing the capacity of transit. Higher speeds can be more appealing, but the real benefit of higher speeds is increasing the amount of service and thus the capacity of the system. For example, 10 buses travelling at average speed of 15km/h along a 15km route means 12 minute frequency. If the speed of those 10 buses were increased to 20km/h, the frequency of the route would increase to 9 minutes, and significantly higher level of service.

And that's really the key to attracting new riders. Just the amount of service. It could be 100 buses, or it could be 100 trains, they provide the same amount of service if they are travelling at the same speeds. As long as they are able to fulfill the demand, bus vs. light rail vs. subway doesn't matter at all.

People are mixing up an R with an F.
R - Rapid
F - Frequent.

lRt - light RAPID transit,
Not
lFt - light Frequent transit.

What people really expect out of a subway is that it is faster than driving. It is. So are some streetcars, and the LRTs, and GO in the GTA. That is why I love labeling them all RT. It is a rapid transportation system.

So, here is my list (hopefully complete) of currently open RT

Skytrain
WCE
C-Train
ETS LRT
Winnipeg Transitway
ION LRT
TTC Streetcars
TTC Subways
SRT
GO
Mississauga Transitway
O-Train
Ottawa Transitway
Montreal Metro
EXO
Metrolink.
Via Rail

Did I miss any RT that is currently open?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Compromises to save a billion bucks.

As is always the way with LRT. It's presented as if there are no compromises - the train will always have priority, it'll be just as fast as a metro! But when implemented, they are always crappier than proper systems.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

People are mixing up an R with an F.
R - Rapid
F - Frequent.

lRt - light RAPID transit,
Not
lFt - light Frequent transit.

What people really expect out of a subway is that it is faster than driving. It is. So are some streetcars, and the LRTs, and GO in the GTA. That is why I love labeling them all RT. It is a rapid transportation system.

So, here is my list (hopefully complete) of currently open RT

Skytrain
WCE
C-Train
ETS LRT
Winnipeg Transitway
ION LRT
TTC Streetcars
TTC Subways
SRT
GO
Mississauga Transitway
O-Train
Ottawa Transitway
Montreal Metro
EXO
Metrolink.
Via Rail

Did I miss any RT that is currently open?

I'm not mixing up anything. You are the one who is mixing things up.

"Rapid transit" is synonym for heavy rail, metro or subway. That means trains operating frequently in grade-separated, exclusive ROWs.

"LRT" stands for "light rail transit", not "light rapid transit".

High frequency is a requirement for rapid transit. If the service is not frequent, then it's not rapid transit. Nothing rapid about long waiting times. Typical bus route in Mississauga is probably as fast as Yonge Subway, if not faster, doesn't make them "rapid transit".

"Transit" refers to urban mass transport systems. Intercity transportation services like VIA are not transit services. Air Canada flights are faster than cars too, doesn't make them "rapid transit".

[Nouvellecosse]

Actually, Doady is right. Rapid transit is just as defined by its high capacity as it is by its operating speed. In other words, to rapidly move large numbers of people by transporting them on high capacity vehicles operating at high frequencies unencumbered in their own ROW. Yes it tends to be faster than road-based transit due to having it's own ROW, but that's partly a by-product of the upgrades needed to achieve high capacity. If you look at the history, the whole concept was created and implemented in places like London, Paris, NY, etc. as a solution to congestion, both in terms of general road congestion and of ridership on surface transit lines. This was also the case for Canada's first RT routes.

The confusion with the naming is that many people misinterpret the "rapid" part. It's an issue of latency vs bandwidth. For instance, many high speed data connections transmit data quickly not because of their ultra low latency but because of their high bandwidth. Rapid transit is high bandwidth and therefore isn't about an ability to move individual riders quickly since that can be done by a variety of modes including express buses and commuter trains. But allowing riders to bypass congestion also improves speed.

Any official definition that I've ever seen from encyclopedias, transit organizations, planning sites, etc. has stressed capacity as much or more than speed. Not surprising since many RT systems aren't particularly "fast" in any way other than their ability to bypass congestion. For instance, one of the oldest systems, the Paris Metro, has an average speed of only about 21km/h and several lines with an average stop spacing of under 500m.

[Nouvellecosse]

When referring to trip speed, the term "express" would be better than rapid. That can really be applied to any mode of transit that offers reduced trip time.

[swimmer_spe]

Clear as mud.

So, LRT may not in fact be RT, and even if commuter rail is in it's own ROW with signal priority, it may still not be RT?
And Streetcars could be LRT, but not RT?

This is why getting stuck on what all those acronyms and all the different labels mean tends not to go well.