The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 137

Nouvellecosse · #**2721** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 2:53 AM**

"My" definition? I neither named it nor defined it, I simply find it works better for everyone to use a single, common name for things rather than everyone making up their own because they don't like the one that already exists. I too don't think that egg plants look all that much like eggs, that grape fruits aren't all that grape-like, or that turtle doves seem all that turtley. I just accept that fact that they've already been named, and it isn't practical for me to rename them single-handedly.

Chadillaccc · #**2722** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 3:06 AM**

Your analogies are completely unrelatable to the conversation at hand. Rapid transit relating to rail based transit that is rapid is not even close to eggplant being named after something it looks nothing like. If anything, that would be an anti-analogy. No one is renaming anything, they're just calling LRT rapid transit, because it is rail based transit that happens to be very fast, faster than many of your most preciously named "rapid transit" systems. How about when we're referring to some semantic definition that excludes things that logically ought to be included, why don't we just say "rapid transit" and when we are referring to LRT as rapid transit, we can just drop the quotes. Sorry, but it seems like you think you're some kind of authority who thinks you're going to get people to do something because it's what you want. It really isn't that big of a deal, so give it a rest. It IS rapid transit. Would it make you feel better if I called it Transit Rapide? Or Swift Transit? or Very Fast Transit? Ridiculous.

Nouvellecosse · #**2723** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 3:39 AM**

My analogies are precisely related because we're talking about terms that have specific meanings and people are disregarding the meanings since they don't think it was a good choice of name. This is the exact situation as the analogies I mentioned. In this case, people don't like the fact that rapid transit isn't the name for all rail-based transit but rather only applies to fully grade-separated, high-capacity, high-frequency, electric urban rail transit. People think it's a bad name since the term rapid means fast so they think it would be better to rename other types of fast rail transit and call it rapid transit.

But by all means, if you're sick of the discussion, you're more than welcome not to discuss it. I was not the one to bring it up, and only stepped in after over a page of discussion by others.

Hali87 · #**2724** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 5:25 AM**

I would consider Edmonton's and Calgary's LRT (and the Skytrain, and even Ottawa's Transitway) to be "rapid transit". I know that, by the strictest technical definition, this is not true. Maybe I do it just to be spiteful, but it's nice to see that I'm not the only one.

Here's why I consider it rapid transit:

- Conventional buses and streetcars are what I would consider conventional transit. They operate in mixed traffic, and are inherently slower than cars. They stop, on-demand, at "stops", and rarely at stations. Travel times are generally vague.

- "True" rapid transit operates in its own grade-separated ROW. There is no mixed traffic, and the vehicles are not inherently faster nor slower than cars. Generally they are faster. They operate on a frequency basis (rather than scheduled), and stop at stations, not at on-demand stops.

- LRT/"untrue" rapid transit - operates in its own grade-separated ROW. There is no mixed traffic, and the vehicles are not inherently faster nor slower than cars. Generally they are faster. They operate on a frequency basis (rather than scheduled), and stop at stations, not at on-demand stops.

I realize that the lack of grade-separation isn't totally irrelevant - roads must be crossed, etc. But by and large LRT is much more like "true" rapid transit than it is like conventional transit, and since most discussions tend to differentiate between transit with conventional transit characteristics and transit with rapid transit characteristics, and since there isn't really another term that encompasses both LRT and "true" rapid transit, even though, when there are two categories, and one of them is conventional transit, and the other is "rapid transit + LRT + etc."... it makes sense to me just to include LRT in the definition of "rapid transit".

Could it be that the term was defined before LRT was a thing?

Anyway, I don't think this argument is going anywhere. Some people will firmly hold onto the notion that Rapid Transit necessitates grade separation, just as some will refuse to accept that LRT and streetcar do not necessarily mean the same thing. Some people are linguistic purists, others define terms based on the technology being described, while still others define terms based on the service level or "experience" being described.

Chadillaccc · #**2725** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 11:57 AM**

It seems more like he brings up the ridiculous technical definition just to be spiteful. He knows we don't care, but brings it up and starts a row over it every time.

That's a good concise series of thoughts, Hali. I agree! But don't want to continue kicking a stubborn dead horse.

Nouvellecosse · #**2726** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 1:43 PM**

Except I wasn't the one to bring it up. If you read the last couple pages you'll notice the debate was well underway between the people who apparently "don't care" before I ever piped up. So please don't make things up or make ad-homonym comments on people's personal motives.

Cyro · #**2727** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 2:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87

Some people are linguistic purists, others define terms based on the technology being described, while still others define terms based on the service level or "experience" being described.

This is very well said, Be it in your current discussion regarding LRT/Rapid Transit or any other discussion in a forum such as this one where "tecnical" and "definitions" and "precision" are, can I say requirements on an everyday basis by the engineers,architects and planners in the industry that post thier thoughts and opinions here. It's almost expected, if a mistake is made in a detail, 10-1 someone here is going to correct you, or feel differently than the poster which is the nature of a constuction related forum such as this one. You can feel the competitiveness between posters flowing all the time.

Just a thought.

Chadillaccc · #**2728** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 2:05 PM**

Saskatoon's forward thinking seriously warms my heart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brutopian

Start planning for rail transit

By J. Adrian Cook, The Starphoenix

August 29, 2013

Cook is a writer living in Harris who spends much of his time in Saskatoon.

Before the boom, Saskatoon was known as a city that you could drive anywhere in 20 minutes or less.

The buses were unreliable, often leaving their passengers frozen and tardy. Cycling in certain industrial areas was an act of death-defying madness. The personal automobile was king: faster than any other mode of transport, cozy in the wintertime.

Then, 20,000 new residents made Saskatoon their home and began driving its streets. Suddenly, the post-school and post-work rush became horrendous. Complaints rose and the mayor ordered the construction of new bridges to relieve the congestion.

Now imagine what it would be like with 800,000 new residents.

Mayor Don Atchison has announced his vision for a million-soul Saskatoon. By 2050, it will stretch from Furdale to Osler, from Asquith to beyond Eagle Ridge.

It is an ambitious plan, but it says nothing about how its citizens will travel. Saskatoon's current road system could never accommodate hundreds of thousands of new cars.

If the city wants to play with the big boys, it needs a passenger rail system. No large, modern city can do without one.

[........]

Read more:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Start+planning+rail+transit/8846573/story.html

J.OT13 · #**2729** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87

I would consider Edmonton's and Calgary's LRT (and the Skytrain, and even Ottawa's Transitway) to be "rapid transit".

Here's why I consider it rapid transit:

- Conventional buses and streetcars are what I would consider conventional transit. They operate in mixed traffic, and are inherently slower than cars. They stop, on-demand, at "stops", and rarely at stations. Travel times are generally vague.

- "True" rapid transit operates in its 1. own grade-separated ROW. There is no mixed traffic, and the vehicles are not inherently faster nor slower than cars. Generally they are 2. faster. They operate on a 3. frequency basis (rather than scheduled), and stop at stations, not at on-demand stops.

Thanks for the consideration, but Ottawa's Transitway is not even kind of rapid transit. It's a mix of sporadic bus trenches here in there with large gaps, hence the need to rebuild Booth Street to go over LeBreton, or "Pimisi", station and to build a 2.5 km tunnel under downtown.

1. Although in their own bus lanes downtown (between 6am to 6pm, otherwise other traffic is allowed on to travel in these lanes, taxis are allowed between 9am and 3pm) the buses have to go through 12 traffic lights downtown, creating long lines of buses. Multiple times a year, buses are halted by protests, parades, accidents and bad weather.

2. In the downtown, it busing is often slower than cars.

3. The Transiways runs on schedules, different schedule's for countless express and regular Transitway routes. The buses are often late or early and sometimes don't show up. The Tansitway 90 series are the only ones that have a fairly regular "frequency", roughly 4 to 6 minutes between each bus according to the schedule.

Acajack · #**2730** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Thanks for the consideration, but Ottawa's Transitway is not even kind of rapid transit. It's a mix of sporadic bus trenches here in there with large gaps, hence the need to rebuild Booth Street to go over LeBreton, or "Pimisi", station and to build a 2.5 km tunnel under downtown.

1. Although in their own bus lanes downtown (between 6am to 6pm, otherwise other traffic is allowed on to travel in these lanes, taxis are allowed between 9am and 3pm) the buses have to go through 12 traffic lights downtown, creating long lines of buses. Multiple times a year, buses are halted by protests, parades, accidents and bad weather.

2. In the downtown, it busing is often slower than cars.

3. The Transiways runs on schedules, different schedule's for countless express and regular Transitway routes. The buses are often late or early and sometimes don't show up. The Tansitway 90 series are the only ones that have a fairly regular "frequency", roughly 4 to 6 minutes between each bus according to the schedule.

In all fairness, BRT can be "rapid" - provided the system is built as it should be with either grade separations or priority greens at signalized intersections.

It's not really fair to categorize BRT as non-rapid simply based on the Ottawa Transitway's failures, as Ottawa never went full out to build the critical missing link in its system downtown.

Had it done so, it would make for a better case study on the suitability of BRT as rapid transit or not.

J.OT13 · #**2731** Posted **Aug 30, 2013, 8:15 PM**

Like the definition from the APTA link of jerimy haak yesterday;

Rapid Transit : Rail or motorbus operating completely separate from all modes of transportation on an exclusive right-of-way.

Motorbuses running on their exclusive right of way are included but Ottawa, and even Gatineau's Rapibus can't be defined as rapid transit. If Ottawa would have built the downtown bus tunnel proposed in the late 80s early 90s along with the Byron tunnel which was part of the original plan, then it would be rapid transit.

Hali87 · #**2732** Posted **Sep 1, 2013, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

In all fairness, BRT can be "rapid" - provided the system is built as it should be with either grade separations or priority greens at signalized intersections.

It's not really fair to categorize BRT as non-rapid simply based on the Ottawa Transitway's failures, as Ottawa never went full out to build the critical missing link in its system downtown.

Before this starts another squabble, I DID specifically refer to the Transitway, and no, I don't know the system very well, having only used one stretch of it that was pretty much 100% separate from other traffic. I did see the crazy bus-jams in front of the Rideau Centre.

I agree that BRT can potentially be "rapid" but considering that Ottawa's is the least compromised system in Canada (as far as I know) in practice I guess it usually isn't. Halifax's MetroLink system is nothing like rapid transit in practice.

Acajack · #**2733** Posted **Sep 3, 2013, 12:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hali87

Before this starts another squabble, I DID specifically refer to the Transitway, and no, I don't know the system very well, having only used one stretch of it that was pretty much 100% separate from other traffic. I did see the crazy bus-jams in front of the Rideau Centre.

I agree that BRT can potentially be "rapid" but considering that Ottawa's is the least compromised system in Canada (as far as I know) in practice I guess it usually isn't. Halifax's MetroLink system is nothing like rapid transit in practice.

I would say that the BRT in Curitiba, Brazil is probably one of the best examples of BRT there is.

As for Ottawa, I have never understood why the downtown segments on Albert and Slater streets never had at least some type of priority signalling for the buses. And that they didn't have this at all the intersections where buses met regular traffic.

Gatineau's Rapibus will have priority signalling where it meets city streets, and in fact there are priority greens already for buses-only lanes in Gatineau and they have been there for years. But none in Ottawa as far as I know.

Still, average bus speeds on the grade separated portions of the Ottawa Transitway exclusive segments east and west of downtown are probably 70 km-h, which is still pretty good.

Chadillaccc · #**2734** Posted **Sep 3, 2013, 1:04 AM**

A cool shot I snapped of the eastern end of Calgary's new elevated section of the West Line this weekend.

LRT Pride by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Coldrsx · #**2735** Posted **Sep 3, 2013, 5:04 PM**

NLRT line in Edmonton

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-XzdzNqz/0/X2/DSC_5035-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-CMtsFCS/0/X2/DSC_5127-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-szD8nLv/0/X2/DSC_5091-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-2CFTqsZ/0/X2/DSC_5138-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-Kh9k6Df/0/X2/DSC_5178-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-mmzVMp5/0/X2/DSC_5182-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-bMqGSPb/0/X2/DSC_5203-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-rKMdspt/0/X2/DSC_5232-X2.jpg)

(http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...date-2013/i-xLxKvxh/0/X2/DSC_5237-X2.jpg)

http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation...te-Photos/Metro-Line-August-Update-2013/

Chadillaccc · #**2736** Posted **Sep 3, 2013, 5:38 PM**

The Metro Line looks great! The stations look like a more modern aesthetic of the Millenium Line in Vancouver. I love the use of wood and metal.

Chadillaccc · #**2737** Posted **Sep 5, 2013, 12:52 PM**

What is going on with MacEwan Station though? I keep hearing about how the new Arena will have direct access to it. Are they going to have to reconfigure it a bit?

SteelTown · #**2738** Posted **Sep 5, 2013, 9:32 PM**

Caught a double decker GO bus in Hamilton

Coldrsx · #**2739** Posted **Sep 5, 2013, 9:37 PM**

Strathcona County just started using them here as well.

(http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/1B/3BAAE3261B2FC23451F1FF59AE9_h242_w430_m2_q80_ciLJkAkvr.jpg)

Chadillaccc · #**2740** Posted **Sep 6, 2013, 1:24 AM**

Right on.